News from Texas about Crawford Peace House, Cindy Sheehan's base of operations. Apparently, there are questions being raised about where all the money went.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:39 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Courtesy of KAS Publicity, authors Cat Moy and Melanie Morgan were kind enough to answer a set of questions I posed to mark the launch of their book, American Mourning: The Intimate Story of Two Families Joined by War--Torn by Beliefs. When I was offered the opportunity, I decided to ask the obvious question:

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:54 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1109 words, total size 7 kb.

As a blogger, I am acutely aware that what I write is ephemeral. It exists only on the web, to be read and then forgotten by the the modest readership I have gathered, to whom, of course, I am always grateful. But I'm not a product of the digital age. I was raised on books, and to me, unless it appears on a book on a library shelf, it will be lost to time, and probably very quickly. The printed page -- and I mean printed on paper -- is the only real way to preserve information for the future.

So it is with that in mind that I am both excited and humbled to see my name in print in a real, honest-to-goodness book. I'm sure it sounds silly to you, but for me, I know now that my kids and their kids and their kids who will be born well after I'm gone can go to a library, pull this book off the shelf, open it up, and say, "That's grandpa. He made a bit of a splash way back then."

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:40 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

1 It's always a thrill to see your name in print- many years have passed since I wrote "professionally" ( i.e., got paid to do it ) for the ad and magazine trade, but I never grew jaded enough not to feel a little tingle of "Gee! That's me!" upon seeing my name in black & white. We're all just a bunch of ones and zeroes and pixels on the web-- "on the Internet, everyone can hear you scream- but nobody remembers 15 minutes later..." Print is surely more permanent. Best wishes from The Heavy Equipment Guy...

Posted by: backhoe at October 18, 2006 05:07 AM (pBlDn)

2 I got an email a couple years ago from a publishing company that produces university textbooks. They asked if they could use one of the columns I wrote for the National Post in their First Year text book on expository essay writing. I actually asked "are you using it as an example of bad writing, or good writing?" They said "We think it's an excellent example, of writing, and that's why we want it to be used as an example for the book. If we were looking for bad examples, we would make it up, or pick something, mix it up a bit and then not attribute it. It is indeed strange to see your name in print... especially in a textbook. That's pretty much why I laugh when I am called an illiterate and poor writer with a bad grasp of comprehension blah blah blah.... in blog wars. I know what I'm capable of achieving with my writing. My dad has the textbook signed with my name on it, on his shelf. I suggest you get a few first edition copies of that book Steve and do likewise. They might be worth something someday on an ebay or amazon auction. BTW - you never got back to me about the financials I've been posting re band office. There's a lot more there now.

Posted by: MWW at October 18, 2006 07:02 AM (qkzOl)

3 Congrats, it's nice work to get a bit of print-space!

Posted by: DirtCrashr at October 29, 2006 08:19 PM (VNM5w)

4 Cheap Nfl Jerseys,Save Up To 70%,Purchanse Directly From Factory! The Lowest Price $15,Free Shipping With PayPal!

Posted by: Cheap Saints jerseys at November 29, 2012 10:05 AM (eOBZU)

5 Dont cast your pearls before swine

Posted by: outlet at December 18, 2012 05:12 PM (HSRig)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Her fifteen minutes long past, Cindy Sheehan is the subject of a book by journalists Cat Moy and Melanie Morgan. A serious look at Cindy Sheehan had to wait until the intensity of the media spotlight faded away.

In part, the book is an emotional look at the lives of two soldiers, Casey Sheehan and Justin Johnson, close friends and proud soldiers who lost their lives within six days of each other in Iraq, and the dramatically different ways in which Casey's mother Cindy and Justin's father Joe dealt with the grief. But more importantly, it looks at the political phenomenon that was Cindy Sheehan, at the powers behind her crusade, and how she was used by those eager to advance their own agenda.

That analysis might turn out to be very important during the next presidential election.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:12 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 768 words, total size 6 kb.

With her book hitting the shelves next week, Cindy Sheehan reveals she fantasizes about going back in time and killing George W Bush when he was an infant and so preventing the Iraq War. The revulsion evoked by discussing infanticide notwithstanding, her plan could never work because of the inevitable intervention of Skippy the Wonder Dog.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:12 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 928 words, total size 6 kb.

New information has been released concerning Cindy Sheehan's condition. Unfortunately, it deals only with the treatment. We already know the symptom. We still don't know the cause. And as long as Cindy Sheehan's people are using her medical situation as a part of their political theatre, it's fair to ask about the exact nature of her condition.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:28 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.

According to one of Cindy Sheehan's colleagues at Gold Star Families for Peace, Cindy Sheehan went to hospital to undergo a transfusion to treat blood loss amounting to an astounding five pints! Gynecologically speaking, there are not too many ways to lose that much blood, especially since Cindy Sheehan has not undergone any surgery recently.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:13 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1782 words, total size 12 kb.

Did Cindy Sheehan grossly overpay for the land in Crawford, Texas? The answer really depends on whether the money spent has helped reach the desired goal. The answer right now seems to be that it has not.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:41 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.

We now know about Cindy Sheehan's cordial relationship with paleo-libertarian Lew Rockwell. What about the cordial relationship she predicted she would have with her new neighbours?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:29 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 642 words, total size 4 kb.

Cindy Sheehan's divorce had less to do with her political crusade last summer, and more to do with her long-running affair with Lew Rockwell, libertarian thinker and fascist detector extraordinaire.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:54 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1104 words, total size 8 kb.

OK, I'm going to do something here that some people won't like.

I'm going to give Cindy Sheehan a huge boost.

How?

By linking to her blog.

Why should it matter? From her Sitemeter:

Total: 332
Average Per Day: 5
Average Visit Length: 1:13
Last Hour: 0
Today: 20
This Week: 34

Five a day? Has she become so irrelevant that you can count the number of people who come to read her writings using the fingers on one hand?

Over the last 30 days, her peak traffic was 44 hits on the June 18. At the time I write this, her day's traffic is 20. I suppose that will change given my Saturday and Sunday traffic runs at over a thousand each day.

Where is her traffic coming from? Mostly Google hits. Besides Google, the most recent hits are coming from this article at AlterNet, a left-wing online independent media outlet.

Her website was created by Theron Parlin, a part-time web designer, so I would doubt this is technical problem.

I just expected something else. A couple of thousand hits a day from adoring fans at Code Pink and elsewhere. But a couple of dozen?

Maybe this is an example of the difference between the media and the people they serve. Cindy Sheehan still makes it in the papers and on TV with her fasts and her foreign trips to visit the likes of Hugo Chavez. But in the blogosphere, where you choose what news you want to read, people are going elsewhere.

Interesting.

Update: Some people have wondered if the blog is, in fact, a parody, or otherwise not legitimate. That might be the case. However, the registration information looked right (including an address in Berkeley where Cindy Sheehan now resides). The email address provided checked out with a comment left on Tim Blair's blog that also seemed right. The link from AlterNet certainly adds credibility. I've scratched my head on why the blog of such an anti-war celebrity seems to be so dead, and I've considered that maybe this isn't her blog at all. But I can't find any reason not to think it is her blog, and several reasons to think it is. If it is a parody, I don't get the joke. But then an unfunny parody is not likely to get a lot of traffic, now is it.

If anyone can confirm this one way or the other, let me know.

Here is something interesting to consider. I just went through every subpage of Michael Moore's recommended links (Alternative Media, Community, etc), and I found no mention of Cindy Sheehan on any page under any category. Daily Kos does not have her on the Blogroll. In fact, Google can't find any pages that link to her blog (too soon for my link to show).

Regrets: I have to say that I am starting to regret highlighting Cindy Sheehan's blog (if indeed it is hers, or run by someone close to her). People have been visiting the blog and leaving some very crude and vicious comments. Obviously I'm not responsible for what someone else does with their online time, but to know that they used my link in order to spew their bile makes me hope that most of my readers are made of better stuff than that. If you are one of those posters and you are reading this, please consider other blogs and websites than mine where you might be welcome. You aren't welcome here.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:35 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.

Casey Sheehan has his monument. Finally.

What about the story behind the story?

Well, here is what I know, from a reporter close to the events. Cindy Sheehan paid for the monument, which she described as "very expensive". There was a small ceremony on Memorial Day (also Casey's birthday) which she attended. It was a private affair -- no media. Apparently, she was embarrassed that the grave was unmarked for two years, and so wanted no one around. Earlier in the day, there was another ceremony attended by local dignitaries and veterans.

Cindy Sheehan did not attend the public ceremony.

To get a better sense of what happened, I got in touch with the family, and here are more details. The details cast a shadow on this moment of closure.

People wonder why it is that now Cindy Sheehan, who controls the money, is putting up a monument. According to my source, Patrick Sheehan forced her to approve of the monument as part of the divorce agreement.

Shocking. I would never have expected that.

The selection of the headstone itself and the verse engraved on it was the result of the effort of Patrick Sheehan and the children, Andy, Carly, and Jane, Patrick did the verse. Cindy Sheehan apparently had no say. It is not clear if she offered no input, or if she was was rejected. I suspect the former. Cindy Sheehan saw and approved the final design before it was completed.

As for the ceremonies: There was a small ceremony on Casey's birthday, May 29, which was attended by immediate family and some local friends. Afterward the group went to a local restaurant. Cindy Sheehan arrived late and left early, made no statement or comment and did not go to the restaurant afterward. Apparently she had a flight to catch. Some political event, I would guess -- but that's only speculation.

There will be another family ceremony, including Casey's paternal grandparents, and sans Cindy Sheehan, at a later date.

So even the conclusion of the saga of Casey headstone, an opportunity for reconciliation and for healing, seems to have been sullied by Cindy Sheehan's intrasigence. Fortunately, the rest of the family seems to have moved on, leaving Cindy Sheehan to plot her own path. It's too bad, because whatever else he might be thinking, Casey certainly could not have wanted this for his mom.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:55 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Casey Sheehan finally gets his monument (via email from the family).

CASEY AUSTIN SHEEHAN

May 29, 1979
April 4, 2004

Our Casey

Ever faithful, kind, and gentle. Good
son, beloved brother, brave soldier, dear
friend. You loved your family and lived
your life serving others 'til the end.

Rest in peace.

This is good news. However, the occassion of the monument finally being placed was not one of reconciliation and healing.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:04 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

As a wise man (or woman) once said, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Fact: The sky is blue:

Canadian voters who bought into that whole "hidden agenda" fairy tale about the federal Tories seem to be awakening to the fact that they were fed a load of nonsense during two election campaigns.

For the third time in less than a week a major public opinion poll has shown Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives riding a wave of support and opening a wide gap in popularity over the Liberals.

SES is the latest agency to weigh in on the question of party standings. In a poll prepared for Sun Media, SES says 38% of us would choose the Conservatives if a vote were held today, compared with 28% who would vote Liberal and 19% NDP.

There has been a huge swing in Atlantic Canada, where 37% say they'd now vote Tory -- a 9-point jump from three months earlier.

Whatever the colour of the sky is in Cindy Sheehan's world, it certainly isn't Tory blue:

By many accounts, Stephen Harper was put in place as leader of Canada by the collapse of weak coalitions and scandals that led to this man now leading a minority government there. He is wildly unpopular from coast to coast up north and there is a growing sense of unease about his emulation of a very unpopular person in the USA but even more in Canada: George Bush.

Now Canadians need to wake up to the fact that their new minority, disliked government is leading them down this same slippery slope to the fascistic militarism of their immediate neighbors to the south.

Worse yet for Cindy Sheehan, Canadians are still supportive of the Canadian effort in Afghanistan, even though everyone knows it is not a peacekeeping mission.

Here again is the sky as it is:

Support among Canadians for the country's military mission in Afghanistan has slipped but is still relatively solid despite a rash of recent military casualties, according to a new poll on Friday.

The Ekos survey -- provided to Reuters -- shows 62 percent of Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan, down from 70 percent in early February. The number opposed grew to 37 percent from 28 percent.

"In some ways, what is most remarkable here is how robust support for the mission has proven to be," said Ekos President Frank Graves.

"After all, for the first time in many years, Canadians are seeing significant casualties among their armed forces," he said in a statement.

And the sky some weird shade of...who knows?

The recent polls in Canada show that the people there are starting to wake up by the truckloads with support for their administration's support of BushCo's war slipping 14 percentage points in two months! Canadians are seeing that the war in Afghanistan is not righteous and that when Canada sends troops there, it frees American troops to be illegally and immorally deployed to Iraq. Canada needs a Cindy Sheehan to go to the PM's residence and demand to know what noble cause her child died for, or is still fighting for.

See, when you insert what are clearly fabrications into a piece that otherwise has some points to make that are worthy of debate, well, the whole thing is tainted. Did Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor sign the NORAD extension with sufficient debate in Parliament, for example, as she suggests? You might make an argument that the implications weren't discussed thoroughly enough (I'm not saying that is the case, but it is a plausible argument).

But it's hard to take anything Cindy Sheehan says seriously while she suffers from a serious disconnect from reality. The Conservative government is doing remarkably well, as poll after poll shows. Support for Canadian troops and their mission is solid, though people are justifiably concerned. If Cindy Sheehan wants to recapture her position as an influential representative of the anti-war left, she has to stop hanging out with the anti-war leftists. It's paradoxical, but true. The more time she spends outside of the echo chamber into which she has locked herself, the better the chance she will see the world as it really is. Then when she speaks, people are more likely to taker her seriously.

Of course, the danger is that once she sees the sky is really blue, she might not mind it so much.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:55 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 5 kb.

Since Cindy Sheehan seems to have come into focus yet again, I'm going to take some time to look at her latest missive, and then indulge in a bit of unsubstantiated rumour-mongering. Why? Because I've been accused of doing that all along.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 2272 words, total size 14 kb.

I've been taken to task over Cindy Sheehan. Now there's a blast from the past.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:09 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment
Post contains 1609 words, total size 10 kb.

1 I think the Prof has called you a spineless piece of shit. Relax. Anyone who attacks an (admittedly confused) mother who has buried a son must surely be one. No?

Posted by: anonymous at April 20, 2006 11:18 PM (aQ7Zn)

2 Hey... 'Anonymous'... there's a word I'm searching for here... IRONY. Today it's defined as "Calling someone spineless in an anonymous blog comment."

Posted by: Heather Cook at April 20, 2006 11:34 PM (4SQNC)

3 Right you are Heather Cook. However, I do not wish to be on the receiving end of AGWN's never-ending obsessions, or indeed, that of the other knuckle dragging trolls who may find his Sheehan-related POVs appealing. I do not need to reveal my identity to make my point: Janke does not know the grief of a mother who has buried a son. I hope he never finds out. Therefore, he should NOT be using Sheehan's grief - or her confused ramblings - as his personal trampoline in order to get a few extra google hits. Irony or not, it is a point worth making.

Posted by: Still_Anonymous at April 21, 2006 12:01 AM (oX/Je)

4 So let's just hypothetically say that I have lost a son. Do I get to criticize Cindy Sheehan carte blanche? Would you say, "Oh, Heather Cook, now she's credible, she lost a son so it's ok for her to say these things about Cindy Sheehan." Does this mean that I have to run the country before I can criticize the government? Or should I have an abortion so that I can be credible when I say I'm pro-choice? Personally I'm in favour of sleeping with Tom Cruise so that my long-held opinion that he's a wack-job can finally be validated because I've 'been there, done that'.

Posted by: Heather Cook at April 21, 2006 12:09 AM (4SQNC)

5 Hmmm.. no.. just irony. sorry Anonymous. Your screen must have had a reflective property about it while you were writing your comment.

Posted by: David at April 21, 2006 02:23 AM (oKVna)

6 Hey Steve, Great post. Some tough language. Love it. You used the name "Cindy Sheehan" so many times that I thought Google must love you. So I Googled "Cindy Sheenah" to see if you would come up. By page 7, I quit. I guess she's more famous than either you or I. Blog on.

Posted by: Bowie at April 21, 2006 03:29 AM (iHoa6)

7 My favorite line from her (and the one that proved her insanity, if there was any doubt) is still her demand that Bush withdraw the troops from "occupied New Orleans".

Posted by: Jay at April 21, 2006 05:58 AM (u8cBL)

8 Heather Cook: No. Steve Janke a.k.a. AGWN does not just attack Cindy Sheehan's views - he attacks her personally, bringing here family &c into his diatribes. I find that repugnant. I would find it equally repulsive if folks on the left would attack Charles Krauthammer's disability (or Stephen Harper's girth) because they disagree with their views.

Posted by: Anonymous_Again at April 21, 2006 07:57 AM (muSXC)

9 I believe "Steve Janke a.k.a. AGWN" only comments on what Cindy Sheehan herself brings into the news. Now if Stephen Harper wants to open up a debate by bringing his girth (am I missing something? is he fat?) into the news, well then fair game. No one can expect to keep their personal life private and contained if they are using it to make the nightly news. Sorry.

Posted by: Heather Cook at April 21, 2006 10:51 AM (4t1ne)

10 Any coverage of Sheehan is unfortunate, but I appreciate your clarity, AGWN. The MSM pours on the emotion while ignoring or distorting the facts that provide context for her actions. I'd say her choice of a car over the headstone is certainly a valid line of reasoning worth some contemplation.

Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at April 21, 2006 10:59 AM (0p4xh)

11 Steve Janke is a rarity up here in the Great White North. He can only be explained as a knuckle dragging sasquatch, devoid of facts, intellect and any semblance of humanity. Picture a scarecrow with straws for gray matter and you get the idea of what you're dealing with. He is a neocon wannabe. Next time send him a point by point questionaire and ask him to provide answers, backed by facts, and watch him squirm. Your 15 seconds of fame is over you phoney.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 11:36 AM (X6p7A)

12 Amazing! This phrase "mental sludge pit" which he used is a first for me. I have a seen and heard million derogatory phrases in my time. I have been on the receiving end of many such phrases so to discover a new one that is so descriptive while unique is quite something. If I were you Steve, I would e-mail him and congratulate him on that phrase alone.

Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 01:02 PM (sw5R/)

13 Why should she pay for a headstone. Why is your favourite cabal, that sent him to die, not providing a headstone? Or may be they're waiting for congress to provide some funds so that Haliburton can get into the headstone business. Or better yet you should provide him with one. Afterall "he died defending your freedom".

Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 01:03 PM (X6p7A)

14 Pay for the headstone because he is her goddam son. enough

Posted by: enough at April 21, 2006 01:31 PM (ucHAZ)

15 Mr. Sheehan is taking care of the headstone. One is provided free of charge IF asked for. The money the soon-to-be-ex-Mrs. Sheehan received for her son's death would have equalled up to US$256k (upper limit) - depending on how Specialist Sheehan allotted the money. She could have bought a better marker had she wanted to, but given her schedule, who has time for children?

Posted by: DaveO at April 21, 2006 01:49 PM (ocRrH)

16 So Steve, When are you going to sue Samuel Bostaph for libel and defamation? You obviously have your facts straight, and he doesn't. And he accuses you of lying. Sue the guy.

Posted by: dino at April 21, 2006 02:43 PM (b8I0n)

17 Steve, Good job luring the gaggle of trolls out of their 'mental sludge pits.' Seems you struck a major chord in their dissonant brains. Wonder what the Vegas bookie odds would have been back on September 12 that the US would not suffer another terrorist attack on its soil in four and a half years? Bet $1000, you'd probably be a millionaire. Stick that in your craw Citizen of the great white north, Anonymous, Striker.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 02:49 PM (MkblT)

18 Enough, You are right. He is her godamned son. Not yours! Not Uncle Sams! And definitely not Steve SKD Janke's! Only Cindy Sheenan can mourn her son. In any goddamn way she pleases. She's earned it. Including confronting those who sent him to die. So why the attacks from Sasquatch Janke and his minions?

Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 02:59 PM (X6p7A)

19 Irwin Daisy, Good word 'dissonance'. Now define it! You and your Furher are the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance. To a point where you insult a grieving mother so you can continue to wallow in your filth and grunge.

Posted by: at April 21, 2006 03:03 PM (X6p7A)

20 Hear Hear! Couldn't have said it better. Wallow in their 'mental sludge pits'

Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 03:05 PM (X6p7A)

21 Citizen of the Great White North: That's a lot of vitriol you have unloaded. Seeing that AGWN has managed to successfully and lucidly present his arguments thus far, why not pose some of those "tough" questions you have instead of making nebulous references to them? Until we see some of your "gotcha" questions, we know who the real phoney is... I'm with Steve D - although the rest of the Professor's musings are fishwrap - the whole sludge pit thing should be commended as a clever insult.

Posted by: steve a at April 21, 2006 03:18 PM (x4k8S)

22 steve a, I don't speak Sasquatch-ese. Perhaps you can serve as an "objective" translator and pose all the questions that Cindy Sheenan raised to him, in point form, and let him answer them without resorting to 'headstone', 'insurance money' and 'Hugo Chavez' charges.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 03:26 PM (X6p7A)

23 Steve a, I'm going to help you help yourself. Here are Cindy's questions. Translate them for the so called AGWN; "Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to "complete the mission" when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is?" I hope you can really speak sasquatch-ese. Best of luck

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 03:32 PM (X6p7A)

24 Whoever: Discordant, incongruous. By the way, nice hissy fit screamer on the end of 'it!' Furher - leader of a socialist party and a vegetarian. Perhaps like you? Insult a grieving mother? When did I do that? "...so you can continue to wallow in your..." That place is on your side of the park. Fortunately for the rest of us, there's a big sign saying 'Toxic Waste. Keep Out.'

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 03:33 PM (MkblT)

25 Irwin Daisy, Good job finding the definition. I take it I have wikipedia to thank for the sudden jolt of energy into the moldy quarters of you brain? Well done. Now spell it! PS:Hitler was no socialist. So I'm afraid your definition of furher doesn't work. Much like your thought process.

Posted by: at April 21, 2006 03:44 PM (X6p7A)

26 Whoever, It's difficult to argue with a blank (in so many ways). or, Never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. National Socialist Party ring a bell?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 04:00 PM (MkblT)

27 Citizen of the Great White North: There is the matter of the following: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 or http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1 For your reading pleasure, I have gone to great pains to give you links that are not in Sasquatch-ese...

Posted by: steve a at April 21, 2006 04:03 PM (x4k8S)

28 Political life should be like the gong show, when someone has embarrassed themselves enough, there should be a giant hook coming from stage left, to yank them away to obscurity. The hook is overdue for Cindy. I think she wants to ride her dead son, into a seat in congress. So unfortunately for her, she wont go away.

Posted by: Curtis at April 21, 2006 04:04 PM (heo8b)

29 What a stunning level of righteous sanctimony coming from some of the commenters here. Cindy Sheehan has been using her son's death to draw attention to herself. The anti-Bush crowd can use prurient and appropriating references to "a mother's grief" all they want, but the fact is it's not all about her. Her son voluntarily fought for a cause he believed in. His choice, not hers.

Posted by: EBD at April 21, 2006 10:32 PM (QSHz9)

30 Whomever: First, it's "Fuhrer". If you're going to call someone a Nazi, at least get it right. Second, the way you lefties bandy about references to Nazism, it's no wonder nobody takes your histrionics seriously. You guys call anybody to the right of Ted Kennedy a Nazi at the drop of a hat. Third, and last, the claim that National Socialism was not really actual socialism is a lie that has been propogated by the left because Nazism was a public relations disaster for them. While industry in wartime Germany wasn't government-owned, there was a command economy in place - defy the government by producing refrigerators instead of tanks like they want, & see what happens to you. So it was de facto socialism, & called itself as such.

Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 21, 2006 11:41 PM (fobbb)

31

--Code Pinko-- the Cindy Sheehan affair-

Posted by: backhoe at April 22, 2006 03:18 AM (+Zuxe)

32 Who instead of whomever. Furher instead of fuhrer. See what happens when you have discourse with weasels? Mouth breathing is a disease.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 22, 2006 07:36 AM (pofY2)

33 A left! And a right! A left! And a right! This is so cool watching you guys go at it. No matter what, before anyone continues, you should stop right now and truly thank God that we live in a society where this type of discussion(?)can go on. Citizen and Anonymous: Your views are simplistic and hysterical. They would be one of those "left"s. OKay....back to it!

Posted by: Cameron at April 22, 2006 11:56 AM (YxmJg)

34 Steve a, I see you did not answer my posting. Should have known that. Instead you posted a link to stories that have nothing to do with the questions I posted. You'd make Goebbels proud! For the rest of you brownshirts here who believe National Socialist Party was actually a socialist, as in a left wing party, read a history book. If the Nazis were left wing, I'm the pope! OR better yet I have a bridge in Bostwana to sell. As for the numbskulls calling me a left wing/vegetarian etc, you make me laugh. I believe all you statist pricks(both left and right wing shills) deserve to be sent on a collision course with the sun along with your "fuhrers", limbaugher,oreilly and the rest of the loudmouth twats.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 22, 2006 12:44 PM (/9t2R)

35 Citizen: What a thoughtful, lucid, well put together argument you present. Clearly, you are the intellectual superior of us all. So, please, explain to me why National Socialism wasn't really socialism. Apart from the say-so of lefties who don't want Nazism giving the socialist cause a bad name, I mean. Socialism is essentially statism. Statism is the hallmark of socialism. You allude to statists on both the left and right, but that's a fallacy. There aren't really any right-wing statists. We right-wingers are actually rather opposed to state intervention and control - haven't you noticed? The Nazi party was most definitely statist. Ergo, National Socialism was a form of socialism. If you're still on this thread, I'm clearly in for an outpouring of vitriol. But, a reasoned refutation would help allay my suspicions that you're really just a kneejerk crank. I just don't think you have it upstairs to construct one.

Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 22, 2006 07:39 PM (fobbb)

36 Citizen of the Great White North: "Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't?" That was cut and pasted directly from your post. My first link is to a headline titled "Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception". You didn't even have to read the rest of the article to get the gist of the story. I know there is no WMD smoking gun, but it shows that your "Bush is a liar" contention is at best a simplistic analysis of what likely transpired leading up to the Iraq quagmire. In the second link I provided, part of the article read "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq - A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein." Do I have to explain who Osama is and how he ties in with Al Qaeda or can you stop your histrionic ranting long enough to connect those dots on your own? I know you equate the personal attack as a form of reason worthy of Voltaire or Payne, but why not read first read my links prior to pontificating over their relevance? It is ironic that with all of the "statist pricks" in this forum, it is you the "moderate" that is the most belligerent and unhinged...

Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:13 PM (q9Y4Z)

37 Citizen of the Great White North: "Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't?" That was cut and pasted directly from your post. My first link was to a headline titled "Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception". You didn't even have to read the rest of the article to get the gist of the story. I know there is no WMD smoking gun, but it shows that your "Bush is a liar" contention is at best a simplistic analysis of what likely transpired leading up to the Iraq quagmire. In the second link I provided, part of the article read "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq - A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein." Do I have to explain who Osama is and how he ties in with Al Qaeda or can you stop your histrionic ranting long enough to connect those dots on your own? I know you equate the personal attack to a higher form of reason worthy of Voltaire or Payne, but why not read first read my links prior to pontificating over their relevance? It is ironic that with all of the "statist pricks" in this forum, it is you the "moderate" that is the most belligerent and unhinged...

Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:16 PM (q9Y4Z)

38 Sorry for the double post everyone - computer troubles.

Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:18 PM (q9Y4Z)

39 Citizen of th GWN and Sriker, Where is your calm intelligent logic? Children call others names when they are confused, miffed and petulant. Take a look at this site: http://www.ReligionOfPeace.com Tell me you want the troops withdrawn as Sheenan demands and this to spread to North America. If you say yes, then would that not be a public declaration of idiocy? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 23, 2006 11:35 PM (2GVBQ)

40 Ian and the rest of you jokers, Is that what "el Drugo' limbaugh is saying these days? That the nazis were socialist? Lookup "sozi" and the "nazism" on the web. Find the difference then perhaps you'll understand that the nazis were statists right wingers just like the present occupants of washington. Musollini and his fascist party were also right wing statists. Labels are cheap. Just like Pat Robertson calls himself a "christian". Or bush calls himself a "conservative". Your deeds determine what you are. And you my simple minded ditto head,like the rest of the jokers here, are no right winger. You are a statist who believes in using the state apparatus to force your objectives on others. A true right winger believes in no government, individual rights and the markets. He/she believes the government's only function should be collecting garbage,postal service and defending our borders(which they failed miserably on Sept 11th). The problem with you wannabes is that in your zeal to score an ideological point you've become what you claim to oppose; the lefties. You've become shills for the state. Ignoring the fact that the state is the problem. That it is the state that spying,detaining and torturing people. The irony,Irwin Daisy pay attention, in this is that a group of so called right wingers, you jokers here, have become apologists for a state whose ideological leanings is not from Edmund Burke but rather from the shenanihans of Wilson, Trosky and Strauss. Stick that in your pipes and smoke it!

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 09:29 AM (X6p7A)

41 To "Ian in cowtown" and the rest of you jokers: Is that what "el Drugo' limbaugh is saying these days? That the nazis were socialist? Lookup "sozi" and the "nazism" on the web. Find the difference then perhaps you'll understand that the nazis were statists right wingers just like the present occupants of washington and Musollini and his fascist party. Just like Pat Robertson calls himself a "christian". Or bush calls himself a "conservative". Labels or monikers are cheap. Your deeds determine what you are. And you my simple minded ditto head, like the rest of the jokers here, are no right winger. You are a statist who believes in using the state apparatus to force your objectives on others. A true right winger believes in no government, individual rights and the markets. He/she believes the government's only function should be collecting garbage,postal service and defending our borders(which they failed miserably on Sept 11th). The problem with you wannabes is that in your zeal to score an ideological point you've become what you claim to oppose; the lefties. You've become shills for the state. Ignoring the fact that the state is the problem. That it is the state that spies,detains and tortures. The irony,Irwin Daisy pay attention, in this is that a group of so called right wingers, you jokers here, have become apologists for a state whose ideological leanings is not from Edmund Burke but rather from the shenanihans of Wilson, Trosky and Strauss. Stick that in your pipes and smoke it! PS Ian: Here is a link for your viewing pleasure http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0859884.html

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 09:45 AM (X6p7A)

42 Steve A, Tsk tsk. You bad boy. Trying to pull fast one. You're a good cherry picker of facts. But lets recap; Do you remember these; 1) Iraq intelligence officer met with Attah(sept 11th hijacker) in Prague. 2) Iraq bought yellow cake in Niger 3) Mobile WMD stations 4) Tubes for centrifuges 5) Iraqi UMV 6) 45 seconds launch capability 7) Ahmed Chalabi Judith Miller 9) Mylorie Lauren 10) Oreilly 11) Hannity 12) Kerry 13) Liberman 14) Hillary Clinton etc etc. What do they have in common? They were all lies and liars. Remember the following people? 1) Scott Ritter 2) Hans Blix 3) Richard Clark 4) Treasury Secretary Oneill 5) David Kay 6) Karen Kwaitowski etc etc They were the truth tellers. And they did so at a great cost to their lives and reputation. And no decent person, let a alone a right winger, will take the word of Saddam Husseins son-in-law over any of these experts. So you see your links were a diversion as I believe you are already in possession of these facts but threw in those links in an attempt of obfuscate.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 10:15 AM (X6p7A)

43 TonyGuitar, Lookup "Non Sequitur"! Or "Fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect "

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 10:56 AM (X6p7A)

44 And before you use the spelling of "Trotsky" as a diversion.. Its TROTSKY!

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 12:54 PM (X6p7A)

45 Citizen: I guess I don't really know what Limbaugh is saying, as I have never listened to his show. My point is my own insofar as I have never heard it argued before. It comes from combining the following: a) a true right-winger believes in limited government, which you appear to agree with; & b) what the Nazis provided can hardly be considered limited government. Which leads me to the conclusion that Nazis were not right-wing. This is contrary to the apparently deeply-held view of the far left, which seems to go something like: Nazis were right-wing, therefore, all right-wingers are Nazis. Seriously, I know what "socialism" & "Nazism" are. I just don't agree with the conventional wisdom that the Nazis were right-wingers, for the reason I have stated. Their statism is evidence that they were more left-wing than right-wing. That is the one & only point I addressed in my post. But you have taken it upon yourself to attribute a whole range of opinions to me, when in fact you have no idea how I feel about those issues. I don't know what hypocrisy you think you've caught me in. I do feel it's rather hyperbolic to equate the Bush administration with the Hitler & Mussolini dictatorships. It indicates that you really have no sense of either history or perspective. And, I guess it's better than being called a Nazi, but "simple-minded dittohead" is still rather rude, I think. Oh well, perhaps it's the best you can do. But one shudders to think of the parents who would raise a child to be so ill-mannered. You must be a charming & lovable individual, with many friends, I'm sure.

Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 25, 2006 07:46 PM (fobbb)

46 Great posting. Every time I read something new about Cindy Sheehan she seems to slip an extra rung on the crazy meter. Is Cindy really crazy though, or just very very ambitious. Rather than a "Peace Mom" Cindy is pimping out the memory of of son in order to buy the things she wants in life. Money, power, respect, relevance. She has dishonoured the memory of her son by hijacking his legacy. Rather than being remembered as the fine young man he was, he will be remembered as 'the son of that nut, who died in Iraq for no good reason'. If Cindy had ANY shame, she would simply apologise and go away.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 25, 2006 07:55 PM (wKVLQ)

47 Ian, "Ill mannered"? Considering the raison de etre of this blog(i.e.: to attack a grieving mother), I'll wear that "ill mannered" badge with honour. Do you see any semblance of 'conservative' ideals in the present government in Washington? Have they reduced the government? Are they not running huge deficits? What of the spying, unlawful searches and detention? Are you in the future going to say this government (republican controlled houses) was leftwing? Hitler and his Nazis were just like the present government in many ways. See "Germany from 1939 onwards" and compare it to atmosphere in America today. Power politics, deliberate misinformation and the use of the aristocracy as a tool to dominate the masses, militarism, propaganda(fair and balanced) and crushing of dissent(see Valerie Plame,Richard Clark, Treasury Secretary OÂ’Neill and General Anthony Zinni). Here is quote from the man himself that will put your "the Nazis were left" to sleep; "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4) Did you check the link? The 'Socialist' label was a trick to get the disillusioned workers to support them. And soon as they got the country they purged the socialists/Marxists, see Strasser, and sent the communists to concentration camps and abolished unions and workers rights. See "charter of labor". Their nationalistic, racist, economic (Capitalism) and pre-emptive warmongering ideals were in line with the far right. And the fact they harnessed the power of the state to do this is what makes them statists. The problem with the so called "right wing" these days is that they are just like the "lefties". They believe they are entitled to ride the bull, i.e. the state, as oppose to shooting it and having steaks for dinner. And since historically the "right wing" and the "left wings" have proven incapable of safeguarding the rights of individuals (see Stalin and Hitler) or modern times (Blair and Bush), they cannot be entrusted with "societal contract". PS: Look up Lysander Spooner, my favourite rascal H.L Mencken and Old Tom Sawyer himself Mark Twain.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 10:59 AM (X6p7A)

48 Cindy Sheenan is looking for fame, money and publicity just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving(MADD) are just fishing for huge settlements from the courts. I know since the inception of "American Idol" and "Reality TV" the level of stupidity is at an all time low in most people but does the above statement seem sensible to anyone?

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 11:06 AM (X6p7A)

49 If Cindy isn't looking for fame, money, and publicity then she isnt looking for it in the weirdest way possible. She is a pimp and an opportunist and a liar. Her own family has disassociated themselves from her because of what she is doing. She pimps her sons memory as the currency for her cause (A cause may I note that Casey was adamantly opposed to). Its disgusting and Casey deserved better. I don't doubt that Cindy is firmly committed to her beliefs (to the point of fanaticism) and that in that sense, she is sincere...but she is dishonest as to her motivation. She wants to pretend she is the "Peace Mom" when in fact she is a committed partisan to her extreme left wing causes. She is using the memory of her son to buy herself credibility, and that is what is wrong, because deep down...she knows what she is doing, but to her the ends justify the means. Also a Citizen of the Great White North and glad I found this blog.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 26, 2006 11:46 AM (wKVLQ)

50 Donald Walker, Ditto MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Drivers)? Are they opportunistic liars? How about John Walsh of American Most Wanted? Is he on a vendetta against criminals?

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 01:12 PM (X6p7A)

51 I have no evidence or reason to believe that MADD or John Walsh are opportunistic liars. Same goes for the Salvation Army and the Canadian Cancer Society if that is the direction you plan to go. If you have evidence that MADD or John Walsh are opportunistic liars, then please present it, but if not then I dont see how they are relevant to the question of Cindy Sheehan since there IS evidence based on her statements and actions, that SHE IS an opportunistic liar. Namely her lies.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 26, 2006 03:33 PM (wKVLQ)

52 Donald Walker, You missed the point.Canadian Cancer society may be but Salvation Army? What have they lost? The point is Cindy Sheenan, like John Walsh, MADD et al have lost loved ones and have channelled their grief into preventing others from similar loss and suffering. List some of Cindy Sheenan's lies. I doubt it very much that you'll be this cavalier if you lost a brother, son, mother, father in a god forsaken land through no fault of theirs. Her son signed up to defend his country, when attacked, no to be sent as an occupational army. His superiors, namely the government, failed him.

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 27, 2006 10:58 AM (X6p7A)

53 Casey reenlisted knowing he would be part of an occupying army. Losing a son is terrible. But it doesnt give one the right to lie, even if they feel the ends justify the lies. Detailed lists of Cindy's lies are posted all over the place including here. You can google them yourself. Cindy is a liar and is far more interested in her own future, than her son's past.

Posted by: Donald Walker at April 27, 2006 08:10 PM (wKVLQ)

54 Good design! My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Lori at May 08, 2006 12:52 AM (suzER)

55 Shop Authentic And Cheap NFL Jerseys! Enjoy Worldwide Express Delivery!

Posted by: Raiders jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:06 AM (wmdzq)

56 There is some nuance in this debate being lost due to national aggregation. Most of the really bad housing situations are really confined to specific areas of the country.

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 11:47 AM (HE+QC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Haven't posted much on this topic for a long time, but it looks like things might change:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is set to hold an 11 a.m. press conference Thursday in San Francisco regarding her potential run for the Senate.

Sheehan has considered running against current California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is up for re-election in November.

Sheehan gained national attention for holding a vigil outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch in 2005 for her son, Casey.

Casey Sheehan was a soldier killed in Iraq in April 2004.

By all accounts, Cindy Sheehan is not a great speaker (especially if she can't rely on four-letter words), nor is she particularly effective in interviews. On the issues, well, she essentially only has one -- the Iraq War. Her opinion on any other issue can be predicted by starting with the assertion that the United States is evil, and then extrapolating.

Economics? Trade? Law and order? The environment? There's a lot to being a senator.

And it costs a lot of money to run. The big donors looking between known quantity Feinstein and unpredictable radical Sheehan will know where to put their money.

Cindy Sheehan can expect donations from the Code Pink fringe, but then they will expect her to bring their concerns front and centre. Complete American withdrawal from world affairs. Abandonment of Israel. Wholesale disarmament. Appeasement of the Muslim radicals.

Remember that there are the people who ridiculed American soldiers recuperating in hospital.

So what Cindy Sheehan sees as support the voting public at large will see as serious baggage. If she tries to take on Feinstein, be ready to see all this and more brought back into the limelight in an attempt to cut Sheehan off at the knees. The Democratic Party was happy enough to use Sheehan when she was a thorn in President George W Bush's side, but if she makes a run at them, they will use every trick in the book, dirty and otherwise, to slap her down.

Give the president credit -- all he did was ignore her for five weeks. Sheehan hasn't seen a real fight yet.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:35 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

I get on average about 1,800 hits a day. Today I'm at 1,180 with three hours to go until midnight.

Why do I mention this? Because even a slow weekend for me is not generally too shabby. I don't know why. But whatever the reason, I'm grateful I haven't fallen to the depths of this famous person.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:30 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Her book ranks down there with James Brewster's "How to Tat in 10 Easy Lessons".

Posted by: maz2 at November 27, 2005 09:41 PM (zlY8T)

2 No wonder she's crazy, having to deal with crowds like that.

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2005 09:58 PM (PIbeE)

3 If you wanna see your traffic hit the roof, keep on this Liberal pork barrelling. Hopefully someone in that organization will have the balls to "Tell All" over the next six weeks or so. We can only hope. Keep up the great work.

Posted by: themaj at November 27, 2005 11:26 PM (Uagor)

4 Can't stand Cindy Sheehan, but I do like YOUR weblog! :-)

Posted by: isirota1965 at November 28, 2005 09:01 AM (SBnaB)

5 I think "Mother Sheehan"'s 15 minutes are just about ... *checks watch* Yep... they're up.

Posted by: JulieM at November 28, 2005 10:45 AM (CCvMb)

6 I think your watch stopped a while ago.

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2005 01:02 PM (PIbeE)

7 Cheap NFL Jerseys China Wholesale have Supply.

Posted by: Cheap Bears jerseys at November 29, 2012 10:07 AM (wmdzq)

8 It sounds like you might be producing points yourself by looking for to unravel this dilemma fairly than seeking at why their generally is a challenge inside the 1st place. thanks !!! actually extremely useful put up!

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 11:03 AM (smSK3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Reuters (hat tip to LGF), Cindy Sheehan will tie herself to the White House fence, and keep tying herself to the fence until such time as all cameras are aimed at her...or something like that.

Nuff said.

Clarification: I guess "Nuff said" was too subtle, judging by the comments. Unless something significant comes to my notice about Cindy Sheehan, I doubt there's much more to be said on the topic. Chaining herself to the fence? Her tragedy has completed the transformation into a farce. I'll maintain my net of contacts, but I doubt there is much Cindy Sheehan can do to draw my attention. I've discussed the truth of Cindy Sheehan's politics, her family dynamic, the events at Camp Casey, her bus tour, Casey's grave -- I've done my bit telling the facts that the MSM refused to discuss.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:56 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

From the ContraCostaTimes:

Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star mother who has become a lightning rod for opposition to the war in Iraq, has moved to Berkeley. According to her sister, Dede Miller, Sheehan moved here about a month ago.

"She enjoys Berkeley and the city's progressive nature," said Miller. "But she now lives in Berkeley because some nice folks offered her an apartment space in their home, and Berkeley is not too far from Vacaville, where her kids live."

Um, old news, people. I posted about this three days past, and revealed that the "nice folks" are the Pearcy's who like to decorate their Sacramento home with effigies American soldiers, hanging by a noose, with crude signs hanging around their necks.

So go ahead and enjoy Berkeley's vicious progressive nature.

Cindy Sheehan, Berkeley, Stephen Pearcy

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:28 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.