perfidy

Unfair! That picture was taken before they started serving Free Beer!

Or am I the only guy who remembers "One Froggy Evening"?

Next up, a trip to the "Home for the Criminally Psychotic", or whatever it was called in the cartoon. I really need to pull out the DVD for a reminder.

Because mothers with dead sons are _funny_!

No, because mothers who use their dead sons as propaganda props and spit on their dead son's sacrifice and spin lunatic conspiracy theories before finally getting ignored are darkly amusing.

Beat me to it, B - the fact that she's such an easy object of ridicule has nothing at all to do with her dead son, Casey.

Separating the two, as she's tried to prevent people doing, makes it easy to see what a nutcase she is.

Well, to be fair, I think you mean . . . because mothers who use their dead sons as anti-war propaganda props . . . . I suspect many of the people who are still, for whatever reason, paying attention to her would not have a problem if she were using her dead son to push the pro-war side of the argument.

As far as "spitting on her dead son's sacrifice," well . . . he's her son, not yours. Suggesting that you or I know better than she her son's heart and how best to honor it is the height of hubris.

I think she's nutty, myself, and think she's the wrong wagon to which the anti-war side should be hitching its collective horse, but I find the above argument disingenuous at best.

@ Phil

"As far as “spitting on her dead son’s sacrifice,” well . . . he’s her son, not yours. Suggesting that you or I know better than she her son’s heart and how best to honor it is the height of hubris."

Hubris? I don't think so. Her son's actions prior to his death have been well documented by the press. He volunteered for service, voluteered for combat assignment (when he didn't have to) volunteered to go into the action where he was killed (when he didn't have to). I'd say that says some very good things about his desire to be part of the solution there.

Her use of his death to fight against the war is her choice. And seeing humor when she is, for all intents and purposes, ignored by the anti-war crowd isn't disingenuous. I honestly find it humourous for pretty much exactly for the reason B states.

How in god's name is one picture published out of context revealing of anything? When was this picture taken? At what point in the event?

Your standards of evidence on this account are pretty pathetic.

And why should mothers be more to blame for using their dead sons for propaganda and believing conspiracy theories than a government that uses dead soldiers for its own propaganda and its own, increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories?

Who gets to own the memory of the dead? Mothers? Governments? Or snarky bloggers who, so far as I can tell, aren't fighting for the war they believe in?

Or are we doing some kind of double standard here?

Karl:

Please feel free to post your picture, and I'd be happy to make fun of it, too, if that would make you happier.

I'm not aware of this propaganda for which you assert the the government's used dead soldiers, or, for that matter, the increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories that you're talking about.

I hope you have not lost any children, to the war or to anything else, but as with Ms. Sheehan, I'd be making fun of you for something completely different - being a a bit of a twat.

I wouldn't go so far as accusing Karl of being a twat without seeing a picture, but -

Several things to keep in mind here, Karl:

I said it amused me. It was a funny picture. I know for a fact that Ms. Sheehan does in fact have her followers, and I'm sure at least a couple of them probably would like their books signed.

If I were making some sort of argument that Sheehan has no supporters, my use of that photo would be suspect. However, I wasn't. My standard of evidence in this case amounts to, "Buckethead, do you think this is funny?" Since I answered in the affirmative, I made the bold and even risky decision to post it on my very own blog.

Patton anwered your noodlings about conspiracies well enough, I think.

Who gets to own the memory of the dead? Yes to all of them. The mother who bore him, the government that had his loyalty and service, and snarky bloggers who appreciate what Casey Sheehan did for him. No one has exclusive rights to these stories. I personally feel that Ms. Sheehan is not doing that particular story justice. In my own way, I contributed in a very small way to the story.

And as for the chickenhawk accusation, you can fold that until it's all pointy corners and shove it up your ass sideways. I have never met a serving member of the military who believes that support for the war is insincere or invalid because the person advocating it is not in the military. I don't have to be a doctor to advocate the fighting of disease, or even in some cases to have an informed opinion on how it might be accomplished. What have you done to fight aids? Why aren't you researching a cure right this very instant?