I’m sickened at the discussions floating around the news about whether or not Sheehan’s t-shirt was appropriate to wear at the State of the Union address.
How soon we forget.
First let’s look at the hypocrisy:
A politician’s wife was ASKED to leave for wearing a pro-war t-shirt.
Cindy was hauled in cuffs, charged and could face a year in prison.
What about those politicians and other guests who wore red, white and blue ties?? Or YELLOW ties.
Bush demands that our children die in Iraq to protect our freedom and then he goes and shits on those very freedoms by ingoring the rights and civil liberties of our citizens.
There have been a number of letters recently, here and in other newspapers, from people who assert that we are at war, the enemy is relentless, and we must use every means in our power to protect ourselves. In particular, they say, it is worthwhile to allow “illegal” wiretaps and other abridgements of our so-called civil liberties in order to protect ourselves. These same people are enthusiastic supporters of sending off our young men and women to kill and to die in order to protect us against “enemies of freedom”. Why is it all right for these brave young people to sacrifice their lives, their health, their youth for our freedoms, while others want to give up those very freedoms to save their own lives? These people are cowards and traitors, and deserve the utter contempt of their neighbors and of every decent American. ~VFP member, Stephen J Spiro
Now let’s take a trip down memory lane shall we?
You and your daughter can wear whatever the fuck you want! Whenever the fuck you want! Remember that fight?
I still remember the days when even women, of all people, would “tsk tsk”, make catty, violent judgements over a rape victim having worn a mini skirt the night she was gang raped. Her clothing was deemed inappropriate and she got what she “deserved”, usually anal tearing, disease, and nightmares the rest of her life.
Yesterday it was a mini skirt.
Today it’s anti-war t-shirts.
Tomorrow… what next?
Judging the appropriateness or inappropriateness of somemes fucking clothing… is a slippery slope that too many of us have fought and paid dearly for.
I want to thank those who suspended judgement, assumptions and criticism of Ms. Sheehan and her ATTIRE… and waited to hear the full story.
Should this citizen be arrested, harrassed or… attacked?
Don’t slide. Remember.
Women, we need to ENCOURAGE, EMPOWER and EMBRACE each other. If one of us doesn’t have the freedom to speak their mind, to wear what they want, then NONE of us truly do.
Just heard the husband of the woman who was asked to leave for her Support the Troops t-shirt and he was INDIGNANT, indignant I tell you that her rights were violated when she was agreeing with what the president was saying. Ahem, the first amendment applies whether or not you agree with what is being said.
There’s an Ani DiFranco lyric that says, “It’s nice that you listen, it’d be nicer if you joined in, as long as you play that game girl, you’re never gonna win!”
note to self: hit “preview” and not the “submit” first.
Going to be interesting to see what happens when our dear senator is asked whether the same rights should be extended to the mother of a dead war hero.
1-2-3-4-tell me again..what the hell are we fighting for? it sure ain’t freedom of speech.
We really need to revive all the war protest songs from Vietnam. Buffalo Springfields song has been running through my head since hearing about Cindy’s arrest last night…Something’s happening here…
Strange dichotomy about being at war and supposedly spreading this freedom bush talks about and during war the government does the utmost to make people who speak out-using our vaunted freedom of speech against us and brands people as unpatriotic, traitors, bin laden lovers, etc etc etc.
Well it’s the first of the month and my SSD check is in so my sister will be taking me to do my monthly grocery shopping and I will be wearing one of the t-shirts she got me for Christmas..the one with the 7 variations of Peace signs on it….so if no one hears from me for several days you’ll know I offended someone in the grocery store and was hauled off to jail…sounds funny but anymore who knows.
Hate to keep repeating myself here, but I don’t think this should even be framed as a “freedom of speech” issue (despite the obvious irony in the fact that this is a woman who lost her son to ‘noble cause’ of ‘freedom on the march’).
Think about it, tho, wearing a T-shirt as a form of “free speech”!
We’re talking about norms for appropriate dress here, not freedom of speech, and when they start hauling people off in cuffs for violating the unwritten codes of conduct established by the ruling class, I dunno, we’re really hitting the bottom of the barrel here.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that’s the way the issue should be framed, and I think it was a strategic mistake for Sheehan to concede that wearing the T-shirt was an attempt to make a political statement.
I wonder if a $1,000 suit jacket from Saks might have made a difference, like she could have framed it as a fashion statement. heheh.
Fantastic points Stark.
I think it’s about freedom. Period.
But… I must admit… everything is a political statement when you’re fighting this fascist regime.
What I put on the dinner table is a political statement.
What magazines I subscribe to is a political statement.
The make up I wear or don’t wear.
The stores I shop in.
The car I drive.
Being a proud library card holder.
Hell just being a woman who enjoys sex – is a political statment.
🙂
Of course you’re right Janet, but it doesn’t hurt to play dumb every once in a while, that’s the point I keep trying to make. The Rethugs have that strategy down to a Tee–and it seems to be working very well for them.
As I’ve said in other comments, “T-shirt? Oh, that ol thing…” woulda been my strategy there (and fuck yeah, I would not have hesitated for a moment to back up my fashion statement with a $1,000 jacket from Saks–I know, my politics don’t always jibe with my fashion habits, but wtf, only my drycleaner knows!)
I’m not quite sure this wasn’t the strategy of the women from Northwestern who wore the flip-flops to the WH last summer–coulda been a subtle political statement there.
politics. Unless she made a threat of violence against someone, saying she is against the war, against the death of expendables, including her son, would fall under the constitution. First Amendment I think but the last time I matched an amendment with something I got the wrong one, so don’t hold me to that. I am not good with numbers.
So if she told somebody the shirt was a protest, or an expression of her opinion, or whatever, again, unless there was some sort of threat of violence involved, which even the warlords have not alleged, then her point is doubly made: One, that amendment is not enforced regarding her t-shirt, and two, it is not enforced regarding her verbal expression of her opinion.
Yeah but….framing it as a “freedom of speech” issue also plays right into the hands of the numbfucks who are misrepresenting the incident and portraying it like she did something really obnoxious and disruptive.
She didn’t say or do anything. She just wore “inappropriate” clothing.
letters to the editor, yard art, and t-shirt messages.
Unless the message could be squeezed into an indecency law, for instance if it advocated bestiality, or incitement to violence, if it said “kill all the whosits,” it is freedom of expression.
Some schools have cleverly gotten around this by putting clauses in their dress codes that prohibit t-shirts that say anything at all.
However, to the best of my knowledge, this is not specified for SOTU guests.
but legally, our “freedom of expression” is not unlimited (think in terms of permits required, etc.); there are some statutory restrictions–as I said, I think protest in the House may be one of them; if so, by admitting it was a protest, Sheehan justifies the arrest.
If she were to claim it wasn’t a “protest”, the burden would be on them, I think, to define what is a “protest” and what isn’t. Would be interesting to try and nail them down on that one.
Is buying gas at Citgo a form of protest? Under what conditions might this form of protest similarly be declared illegal?
Obviously, it is not illegal to wear the t-shirt Sheehan was wearing outside the House, or is it? Could someone be arrested on the street for wearing the same T-shirt? If someone could be arrested for wearing said t-shirt, what about the t-shirt’s manufacturer? Hmmm.
I read, she doesn’t mention telling the gunmen that it was a protest, merely that she was removing her jacket because she was warm.
Or did she say after her release that it was a protest? I really don’t recall, but assuming she did post to a blog that it was one, are you saying they can bring that in and say look, she says herself that she was protesting?
Even if that is the case, it seems like the burden would still be on them, since she did not declare herself to be protesting at the time of her arrest, which would, as you say, oblige them to specify exactly what is and is not considered a protest.
Especially since they accused the politician’s wife of protesting, but did not arrest her!
Their attempt at damage control there may turn out not to have the desired result! 🙂
I believe she said in the blog post about it that it was “a protest”, not “on the scene”–and yeah, that’s what I meant–it substantiates precisely what they want substantiated.
if she’d just said, hey, it wasn’t a protest, I was just being me, it would have forced them into the corner of defining what a protest is.
“protesting’s hard work, man, and yeah, I was out protesting all day–and, sheesh, didn’t have time to change. “
That way they’re also punishing her indirectly for protesting/expressing free speech, rather than rewarding her for it as they should, but she hasn’t technically broken any law that would justify on any grounds even the thought of arrest. She was just sitting there. Peacefully.
Civic engagement used to be valued in this country.
ah,…but here’s the catch.
As last night’s incident underscores, I do not think she would enjoy doing that.
Which of her principles do you think she would be willing to abandon in order to become an “electable” candidate, or win an “election?”
I don’t think she would have any chance of being elected. I don’t think she would abandon any principle. This combination would make her a prime target for exploitation by shadow supporters who want to tear others down. Rather than run for office, she should get a puppy.
Some crusade supporter would hurt it.
I’d watch the puppy for her and protect it from any harm.
I think it’s fantastic she gets politically active.
Did anyone tell the mothers of children who were killed by drunk drivers to “get a puppy”? No, they got active and formed M.A.D.D.
Did anyone tell John Walsh to get a puppy after Adam’s head was found severed from his little body?? No, he got active.
get a puppy
that’s like telling someone woman who lost a child to go out and buy herself a nice dress …
I don’t understand where this is coming from or going.
Getting a puppy was an alternative to running in an election for office. I’d give the same advice to anyone I respect. If after all of my comments, you consider me to be insulting her, then I’ve wasted my effort in trying to support your (and her’s) cause here.
I said I didn’t understand, which isn’t quite “insulted”.
Trying to wrap mybrain around the idea of telling people you care about and respect to get a puppy instead of trying to exact some type of change to end a tragedy that befell them… regardless if that effort was in the way of running for office or forming a group.
I’m sorry, but I simply don’t get it.
To be honest with you, if I had lost a child due to (fill in the blank) and tried to create justice/change by (fill in the blank) and you as a friend told me to instead get a puppy… I would be so insulted and feel utterly and completely betrayed I don’t think I could adequately restrain my shock and anger. That’s just my off the cuff gut instinct.
And the more I try to think about it… the more I realize that maybe I shouldn’t try to.
Well, maybe distance and a bit of detatchment could see potential dangers a little more clearly.
That line about the puppy was made in reference to running in an election against a pro-war, incumbent Democrat on the main foundation of ending the war in Iraq. She could better use her energy and resources toward a more realistic goal without suffering the damage she will surely endure in that election. She’ll be up against all of the Reps, a bunch of the Democrats, the media is already biased against her and her grief would be further exploited for others’ benefit.
Sometimes a friend takes the keys away from a friend who might put herself/himself in excessive danger. It has nothing to do with stifling her freedom of speech.
Maybe the choice of ‘getting a puppy’ was a bad phrase. If so, I apologize but it was never condescending. I think Ms Sheehan is suffering an ultimate grief in losing a child. I have two kids and I can’t comprehend how devestating the loss of either would be.
Nothing will ever replace her son but that loss doesn’t make her the best candidate or a politician.
Sometimes it’s best to redirect our energy and compassion in a different direction for a short time.
What more damage can they possibly do to her?
They’ve attempted to smear her. Mock her grief. Tried to turn her into a cartoon.
There is no other pain than that of losing a child. That is why they truly can’t hurt her any futher. They know that. She knows that – and that is why they are so afraid of her.
I think her honesty and straight-forwardness makes her a valuable candidate.
She has mentioned she went off for a short time with her grief. Being active for some is how they deal with such losses.
Strike while the iron’s hot some would say.
Personally I don’t think I myself could do it. But I know that there are so many that can and have. And that is why I want to support a person who can take pure loss and pain and turn it into something that could benefit others.
There’s a politician who took office due to her activism when her husband was gunned down on the subway (forget names)
I find it courageous. Healing. Hopeful
I wish nothing but success for her if she chooses to run. I’m sure she will be thoroughly dedicated to the task if she does.
do no more good for her cause to run for office than to get a puppy.
And I tend to agree. From what I have read of her, including things she herself has written, I don’t think she would be amenable to abandoning her positions on any issues, and most of the issues she has stated strong views on are definitely in direct opposition to US policy, and thus not compatible with becoming an “electable” candidate, much less winning an “election.”
I do not get the sense that she would react positively when “talked to” about “pragmatism.” 🙂
then there’s that whole bible school teacher issue 🙂
I like the fact that she’s on the hill. Stirring things up. We need that.
Instead of Maria Cantwell “no doesn’t really mean no”. ACK
being arrested not just for what you wear, but for what you DON’T wear.
When will the Patriot Acts and it’s license to haul us away for being “percieved disruptors” and “possible enemey combatants” – institute that we all wear little patches on our lapels stating our loyalty to the regime.
Oh, we have one of those Regime Patches already, it’s called the “Support the Troops” magnet for the ass end of cars.
“where’s your bumper sticker? don’t you support the troops? are you one of those pinko, pussy liberals?”
Don’t laugh. It’s happening.
Well, letme see….we can start by giving AndiF a yellow star, and who here would be wearing the pink triangle? I suppose me and ghostdancer would have to get little circle of life patches or something, huh? In my case, do I get to wear the yellow star on the left and the circle of life on the right?
Hmmm.
can so easily slide into what the Nazi’s enforced. I see very little difference between those bumperstickers and those patches.
“L” for Liberal – A magenta pink “L” that is.
Believe me, I know. And personally I think we’re much further along that slippery slope than most people realize (or can admit), but what do I know? I’ve only spent the last year and a half translating original source documents from the Nazi era….apropos that…..2,000 pages and counting…Naw, I don’t know the first thing about Nazis. It’s just empty talk when I say “fascism”–just pulling a tired old analogy out my ass, that’s all. yeah right.
elegantly tattooed on the forehead.
ya dunnit again, you! lol!
In the early days of the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999, a Pennsylvania man named Dave Delp was removed by the Capitol police from the Senate gallery for wearing a t-shirt that said, “Clinton doesn’t inhale, he sucks.”
The Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.
Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said at the time that he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told “several people felt threatened by your shirt.”
Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn’t let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.
After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. “They were polite and professional,” Delp added, “but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up.”
questioned and photographed, but no cuffs and no charges, right? Hmmm.
One slight difference: That was a TRIAL. Cindy was at a public speech.
Frame/s? 🙂
It’s about freedom. Freedom period.
Well, as far as trials go….if Michael Jackson can go to court in his pajamas….is that a form of protest or a fashion statement?
Gosh, I have some pjs that say “tis the season to be crabby” (from a Crab house, haha). Guess I better be careful next year–might be seen as an enemy combatant in the war on Christmas or something.
Uh Oh..calling Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson-Code Red-Code Red, to the battle stations…war on Christmas continues with anti-Christmas pj’s. Be on the lookout-anti-Christmas pj’s may be lurking in a bedroom near you.
actually, I only bought the bottoms. So maybe next time I get arrested for entering a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” establishment without any pants on, that’ll be my excuse: I was afraid I’d get arrested for being a potential enemy combatant by wearing the only pair of pants I have left now that I’ve been reduced to selling my clothes on the street just to keep up with my dental bills.
snark.
Excellent diary girlfriend. I was one that had a little judgement going when i first heard the story last night before reading Cindy’s version of what happened at Kos. I had to slap myself for my thoughts at the time. I don’t agree with everything Cindy says or does but she was right to wear whatever the hell she wanted to last night. But the real story is that it wasn’t the t shirt that got her thrown out/hauled off to jail, it was a “just because” moment. Just because she is who she is. They sent a very bad signal last night to us that dissent. STFU or we will haul you off to jail. F them!
Bush is afraid of her. Can’t have Cindy in the crowd when Big B*ushzi is giving rhetoric.
I’d like to see her hand over the shirt, exposing a bra with a cross on one side and a star of David on the other, linked by a ‘God Bless America.’ Gee, which one of my breasts offends you? Good theater makes people think, and I love the radical stuff.
Actually, it’s great that Cindy can get attention without taking off her shirt. Ah – celebrity!
America is blessed with some awfully fine women…. Which is a blessing, since men find so many ways of amusing themselves, and accomplishing little. Cindy is one such woman, and to see the outrage of women across the country, with the way she was treated at the SOTU, heart-warming. Also saw this on the blogs, where mindless bush supporters were basically told to shut the fuck up, by outraged women, women who understand a grieving mother, who understand that their baby may be next. Without women, America would be gone. What I also enjoyed seeing was the beginning of chivalry(men wanting to get part of the credit)….. Men who strongly supported Cindy, or the women posters, who put bush sheep/parrots in their place. Women are leading the charge in trying to rescue America from the fascist assholes in power. I encourage men to put away their toys, turn off the mind-numbing sports they love so much, and get behind their ladies. Time to stand up for what is right about America. Time to follow the ladies lead, they think with their heart and soul…. They will not be lead astray…. Blessing to the women of America, and to those men, that think with their heart and soul; as well. :>)
Bravo EtJ. Now rustle up some of those men and lets get ready to rumble!
Alohaleezy,
Eerie, I almost ended my post with: ‘let’s get ready to rumble’. I did notice the men posting were thinking with their hearts and souls more, on the blogs last night. This is a good sign…..
Had breakfast with a dear friend this morning. She had her son with her. Cindy was brought up, and he jumped in with the chant, Cindy is a crazy women, and should be ignored. Which I explained a few things about Cindy’s message, and her right to protest, then suggested we change the subject, out of respect for his mother.
His mother wanted nothing to do with this idea, she asked her son to leave, and to come back later, to get her. We were able to go further into the crisis that America faces.
At this time, Cindy is the best that we have, and with every hit she takes, I do notice that the women of America get even more furious. Some men will have little choice than to follow(mama runs the house). Some men have all ready seen the crisis that we are in. Some men will never understand, till there handlers tell them that it is OK to think differently…
Cindy is one of my flash points…. I have no problem with people disagreeing with her, but if they attack her, then my dander gets up. Especially when they use the talking head attacks, that are so often repeated.
Ready to rumble(along ith others), in the Colorado High Country….. EtJ
I agree with your comment and respect Ms Sheehan. Where though is the line drawn between her speaking from the heart on principle and being used as a tool by some groups?
Do you ever get concerned that she gets used by others?
Rumi,
Of course she is used by others, this is America. She does seem to keep pretty good company for the most part, She has made her mistakes. Her overall message is explain this war to me, or end it. She is quite focused. One huge point she is making, that is overlooked; is screw their titles(republican/democrat); a war mongrel is a war mongrel. She deals with the issue at hand…. She has had the balls to stand up to bush, as well as clinton. Not many can say this. America needs to put partisanship aside, and do what is right for America. United We Stand, Divided We Fall….. Quite simple, yet division seems to be the game of many. Time for America to Unite, or Fall……
for you for the words that I couldn’t find, EtJ.
Yup, let me double up that thank you. You put that spirit of her actions into well chosen words to express it. I don’t hold against her any manipulation by others. I just feel bad for her that for all the pain she’s been through, she’s still willing to speak out and some take advantage of her that way.
I can not and will not speak for Ms. Sheehan.
All I can voice is what I feel. I don’t really think she’s being used. I think she has allowed herself to be a tool to end this war.
Her pain is constant. Regardless if she mourns alone or mourns while standing at the forefront in the public eye.
If she had remained silent and kept her grief personal… we would not have a non-violent peace movement that we have today.
It wasn’t untill a grieving mother stood up and asked questions and SHARED her grief.
I don’t feel like I’m using her. I feel like I am supporting her quest for an answer and to end the war.
I didn’t mean being used by any of her supporters and I probably should have been clearer on that. I respect her speaking, struggle and sacrifice and I agree that we would have no peaceful anti-war movement without her. She has my support. There may have been a few statements in the past I disagreed with but I can’t even remember what they were now. Still, just because I disagree with a few statements it wouldn’t diminish my respect for her.
When I refer to her being used, it’s not by those who care about what she’s been through. I believe they wouldn’t do that to her.
I DO understand what you are saying Runi. That is part of the problem when you gain notoriety. There are people out there that will try to attatch themselves to you so they can feel important and/or heard. We ALL use each other. I use you all here just to get through all the bullshit some days.
I will continue to support and trust Cindy and her leadership within the Peace movement as long as she stays on message and in Integrity.
I really don’t see this as an apparel issue. If they want to have a dress code, so be it. But security didn’t get upset because they saw a tee-shirt; they shouted “protester.”
That is what she was arrested for. It is a sad day when non-disruptive, non-violent expression is criminalized.
The Mrs. Young incident was just a post-facto half-assed CYA exercise. That she was told her tee-shirt’s message was also a form of “protest” for which she wasn’t arrested simply highlights the criminalization of unwanted speech.
I hope Sheehan does take this to court, & finds an empathtic judge who remembers what the First Amendment really means.
The criminalization of non-violent protesting is already happeining. David Airheart, Diane Wilson… the list goes on.
It’s about freedom. Which wasn’t that what the whole SOTU and this whole bloody war was about?
She was cuffed for being a PERCIEVED DISRUPTOR aka peace protester.
For being herself.
In the olden days we women could get harrassed for wearing pants. It’s not about apparal.. that would be silly.
It’s about our freedom and how we’re sliding backwards.
One day I could get arrested for wearing a CodePink t-shirt. I’m a “combatant”…
Then who will speak up after I am raped and asked “what were you wearing on the night of…”
I know that. It’s one of the points I tried to make last night when I first posted the link to last summer’s flip-flop wearers: they were “athletes”, she was an “anti-war protester.”
I think precisely that point is what is made even clearer by claiming it as a fashion statement, just like the “athletes” did.
Don’t you see the logic in that?
If she claims it was just a fashion statement, well, then it’s clear: she was arrested for being PERCEIVED as a protester. But as soon as she admits that she WAS actually protesting… enter the whole bullshit blather about how unpatriotic it is to protest the war, and especially in this situation.
I can also see the value in arguing for the right to protest peacefully, even at the SOTU (especially then?). I guess I’m think more in terms of public perception here. Of course, all of us commie pinko liberal/leftist/progressive/radicals are going to be in favor of the right to protest peacefully anywhere anytime. But you know your standard-issue rethug is going to think, well, huff, huff, it’s certainly not OK to protest as an invited guest to the SOTU. But shit, if it’s just about wearing a t-shirt, well….maybe “Jesus loves you” will be next?
Thing is (and this is why I keep asking for the text of the statute they’re using to justify the arrest) there may in fact be some legal basis for restricting PROTEST in the House (I think those were the original charges they slapped on her, then they ratcheted it down, obviously because she didn’t engage in any form of active protest, ie in word or in deed), but I don’t see where there can be any legal basis for restricting what a person wears.
Elected officials of both parties have enabled law enforcement to make arrests based on that judgement. It’s outrageous, yes, but the LE have been empowered with that until it’s changed.
Considering that nearly every major elected official was present and not one stepped in to stop it, I’d say they approve.
So I’m sure everyone’s seen it by now and knows, but sheesh, these dipshits are so utterly predictable you get to feeling like a soothsayer or something. As I suspected (and as usual, the headline is slightly off, reads: “State of the T-Shirt War: 2 Messages, 2 Ejectons”–what’s missing, of course, “2 message, 2 ejections, ONE arrest”)
Now, if we could just get behind what “old unwritten interpretation” of what law actually justifies the domestic spying……we really need to remain vigilant about WHICH laws are de facto on the books and which ones these idiots just seem to ASSUME are on the books. They haven’t yet succeeded in completely rewriting the law, but, heck, they figure, maybe if we just keep making this shit up, no one will notice. They never did before.
Vigilance.
I think we’re agreeing on many important fronts. It’s just that the priorities of such fronts may be misunderstood??
Psst I’m not even finished with my am iced coffee… I’m posting on pure adrenaline from last night.
But I did mention – what about those yellow ties< red white and blue ties?
I’m looking at this also from a Patriots Act USA Gestapo fight, too.
They will be arresting us all for various things, apparel, words, signs, phone conversations because we
don’t agree with Dictator Bush
That’s Cindy’s only CRIME.
That’s our CRIME.
Don’t I know, dear.
(I got a “bush spied on me”-T-shirt for Christmas this year, dontcha know.)
Now, this time I’m serious about getting the hell OUT of here…..
Later.
Thanks for the diary. Twas good fun, now I must quickly hit LOGOUT and Quit Safari or I’ll never do it.
ciao.
Carryon.
Didja see this yet?
New Patriot Act Provision Creates Tighter Barrier to Officials at Public Events
Gee, thanks Arlen!
a little technical change? misdemeanor to felony???
like I said, it’s a free-fall . . .
OH yea… that was in another diary… and it’s total US Gestapo tactics.
Yup! It’s all about stifling dissent.
I still can’t really wrap my head around designated Free Speech Zones.
Soon they will be arresting us for wearing the words of the First Amendment — or the Bill of Rights . . .
sliding backwards?
it’s a gawd-damned high velocity free-fall
This goes further into the contradiction. Mrs Young admitted in some news articles that she continued arguing with the officers and called one officer an idiot. Now, if someone who was not a Bush supporter did that, charges would file and stick.
said “not a Bush supporter” retrieved their head from the choke hold too!
Yikes! I forgot about that part. I couldn’t believe she admitted to continuing to argue with them, insulting them and they still didn’t ‘book ‘er Dan-o’
One only hopes she’ll draw a federal judge who gives a shit — hope’s cheap of course . . .
Cindy left without protest. Won’t be suprised if charges are dropped, but hten, that might be giving them too much brains on credit
btw, I’ve been meaning to ask if you recall where that great ED quote in your sig came from?
Slightly altered from a post over on Big Orange
I think Cindy knew exactly what she was doing,and she upstaged the pretzelnit. This is an excellent tactic.All the news was about her. What was that sayiing about all publicity is good publicity,whether positive or negative?
Maybe we should all get tattoos? What would happen then?
when referring to a torture cartel. They would simply remove the skin.
and make lampshades out of it.
Would they scrape it off, like a bike acident’s road rash?
Would they boil it off?
Would they have an Abu Ghraib security dog bite if off?
Would they fry it off?
Would they inject anthrax into it?
Vee have vays of making you confirmz
One thing that got to me was the hypocrisy of having the parents of the fallen soldier in Laura’s box and using their dead son as a shill for his propaganda.
Here on the one hand is a mother of a fallen “hero” being praised and thanked for her sacrifice, while only minutes before the mother of another fallen soldier is dragged out and arrested for reminding us of the other 2245 “fallen heros”.
I guess only the pain of loss felt by Bush supporters really counts … and should be recognized.
Yet the right-wing, and their MSM lackeys sees no hypocrisy in that
“Here on the one hand is a mother of a fallen “hero” being praised and thanked for her sacrifice, while only minutes before the mother of another fallen soldier is dragged out and arrested for reminding us of the other 2245 “fallen heros”.”
Thank you for that incredible statement!
Thanks Duke – Hopefully we all got the message about being compliant instead of uppity wimmin. I’m guessing all our female “representatives” had no objections. No need to ask if we had more than one female judge on the premises.
“Sheehan ridiculed Bush for saying that it’s “hard work” comforting the widow of a soldier who’s been killed in Iraq.
“Hard work is seeing your son’s murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you’re enjoying the last supper you’ll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both,” she said.”
Cindy has been around for sometime…. This is from an article: Published on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 by the Lexington Herald-Ledger (Kentucky), that is no longer there. It can be found at Common Creams, however.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0614-09.htm
Her definition of hard work, has motivated me to follow her, on her journey. She deserves America’s support.
Interesting wrap-up to the article: “Quoting scripture and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hinson suggested the nation is greedy and morally bankrupt and warned that America’s fear of terrorism is excessive and unhealthy. Denouncing “fear that immobilizes, fear that causes you to lash out mindlessly, fear that prompts a nation to launch a preemptive strike against an imagined enemy, fear in excess,” the Prof nailed it.
I just heard on CNN they dropped the charges.