A Piece of the Action Soapbox

Scott Horton interviews Cindy "Peace Mom" Sheehan. Peace activist Cindy Sheehan discusses plans for continuous civil disobedience in Washington D.C. until the Iraq and Afghanistan wars end, lessons learned from the Pittsburgh G-20 protests, how Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was awarded soon after he refused to meet with peace groups and why much of the Left can’t wrap their heads around a pro-war Democratic Party.

---- I can barely listen through such interviews anymore, in fact, I rarely get to the end. Yawn. I'm still trying to determine who anoints the mouthpieces for the "Left."

Originally, Cindy appeared to be chosen as peace mom by multi-funded organizations, such as Code Pink's Medea Benjamin. Now that Benjamin has been "rethinking" the war ... well ... I guess Cindy is the "new left" or one of those "dissident" voices that has yet to reach the tax bracket that embraces capitalism while publicly espousing a redistribution of other people's brackets.

Anyhoo, listening to the above interview, my first thought was Cindy has been using a voice coach - but then, within 30 seconds or so, I heard that slight whine slipping back into her voice.

Horton and Sheehan discussed Sheehan's upcoming planned occupation of D.C. Until the Iraq/Afghanistan wars end, this action, going by the name of A Peace of the Action, will be continuous - hmmm ... sounds serious ... just as she continuously occupied Crawford, Texas, and the hunger strike that lasted 3 days, her political skit/run against political lifer Nancy Pelosi ...

Sheehan and friends' "demands" are: troops out, mercs out, reparations paid to Iraq - and this will be accomplished by "sustained direct action" i.e. having their peace personnel at 10 different locations every day to shut down intersections, buildings, etc. until their demands are met. I don't believe anyone mentioned BushCo war crimes trial, guess that one has been crossed off the dissident to-do list.

Cindy's "coalition" of peace groups will include World Can't Wait, After Downing Street, etc. The bigger groups, she says, won't be there as they have been co-opted (must be talking about used-to-be-best backer Medea of Code Slink). Rut-ro, Cindy says they will not start their action until they have 5000 peace warriors willing to sign on for this sustained offensive. Not to be callous but how about we call her Colonel Mom?

Horton says he thinks shutting down D.C. would be a blast. Hahahahahaha. I can hear 300 million folks applauding as their government is toppled and replaced with ... what? gotta name for it, if we can keep it?

Sheehan will be moving to Washington, D.C. to direct her end of this continuous action. Ever wonder how these folks who are "one of us" can financially afford to travel the world, relocate multiple times, turn intermittent continuous action into a career, all on low-end speaking fees and donations? Have you looked at the Additional Contributors on Antiwar.com?

If that isn't a list of overpaid do-littles for a lifetime I don't know what is. Hey, you patrons of airhead spokespersons - pick me pick me - I want a piece of the action too. I can be more dreary and predictable than those clowns! Hahaha, just kidding - I always fly low on the radar. Maybe that's why I have a hard time understanding how anyone can waste their energy demanding a product they don't use themselves. In this case I guess the product would be common sense.

Being "anti-war" does not automatically endow one with common sense.

The interview made me wonder though, other than anti-war/nonintervention - what do libertarians, like Horton/Antiwar.com, have in common with "leftists" like Cindy? I have been accused a couple of times myself of being libertarian because of my stand on welfare, taxation, gun rights, immigration - but I disagree with several of their stances on other issues.

I agree with nonintervention - but once we've committed time, money, and lives, there has to be a different approach other than pulling out, letting the place fall to the best armed barbarians, and then pumping in the same amount of money disguised as reparations or rebuilding.

I disagree with the insane libertarian idea that we can make our streets safe again by ending "drug prohibition." If legalized, coke head, meth head, crack heads, and pot heads, will have affordable drugs and apparently no reason to commit crime, hence our prisons will not be overcrowded with nonviolent drug offenders, and there will be room for really violent guys, for "serious" criminals.

According to libertarians, ".... it is estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts."

Obviously, libertarians are not looking at the same guys I am. Where I live, the drug offenders are usually the ones committing robbery, assault, burglary, theft, and sometimes murder. But go ahead, convince me that it's okay for Bubba to cook up meth because he's a nonviolent offender.

Tell me it's okay for that young boy to sell a few rocks, as long as he's not violent, except the other night when Pookie went to make a sale and ended up shooting the potential buyer in the butt because he wanted to keep his drugs and the money too (true story). And it's okay for Puff because she's not hurting anyone but herself when she spends her days walking up and down the street looking for another rock, she shouldn't be in jail because she's nonviolent - it was her boyfriend, another crackhead, who was violent, stuffed his socks in crying baby girl's mouth and then smashed her head in. (True story.)

Tell me nonviolent drug offenders are not a problem. Convince me low-level dealers and users are noooooooooooo threat. But, when (not if) they become violent, we'll have room for them. Go ahead, convince me it's okay for the pilot, the surgeon, the cop, the judge, the lawyer, the clerks entering all your information anywhere, and my favorite goofball Carl Sagan, to be stoned or jonesing because they're nonviolent. Yep, not gonna hurt a soul. Let's all sing Rainy Day Women, but I would not feel so all alone .... everybody must get stoned. Legalization is the solution, genius?

Libertarians use the example of alcohol prohibition as proof that prohibition doesn't work. Of course, legalizing liquor did not end crime, did not reduce the price, did not end bootlegging, and did not reduce the number of drunks. Don't get me wrong - alcohol should be legal. But anyone who spins prohibition to defend legalization of drugs has used too much of one or both products.

Libertarians ask you to "Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk."

Oh my, look at all the stupid in that "evidence." Murders rates during prohibition were related to turf wars/mafia wars. The doubling of today's murder rates are related to many ills, usually connected with the drug culture - violent home lives, broken homes, dysfunctional homes, pornoviolence entertainment glamorizing the drug culture, craving instant wealth, and an adult population that protects it young from nothing because easy assess to whatever we want is "liberty." Free to be me, me, me, me.

Liberty yes - problem is too many folks do not want the responsibility that comes with it.

Can't you just see the US signing trade deals with the Drug Cartels. If you think Oil and Pharma are big business, just wait till you see the profit from legal dope - we can have malls with opium dens, meth parlors, pot pubs, cocaine, heroin hangouts, step right in, you want the opulent brand, perhaps a high altitude blend of China and Columbia's finest, or will some cheap stuff do you? Yep, that should solve a lot of our crime and drug issues, create jobs, increase tax revenue. Will big manufacturers of "recreational" drugs have the right to require naked workers? ...wouldn't want employee theft cutting into profits. The ACLU can sue if that question comes up.

I suppose my biggest difference with libertarianism is I believe many people are "law-abiding" citizens, and do not engage in activities that are illegal - but! make something legal and too many of them will be first in line to use it, have it, sell it, buy it - that's why the ruling class call us sheep.

I also agree, maybe 90%, with the libertarian view on "the failed welfare state" which is : "... eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."

The 10% of disagreement is that initially this would create chaos and more crime, for the simple fact is we are now going into the 3rd generation of individuals unable to support themselves and turning to family is not an option as mom and grandma, are also unable to provide for themselves and family. Reagan and Clinton both cut back welfare - but people caught on to that real quick and a new brand of welfare arose - "disability." Usually after a back injury from a motor vehicle accident, and other forms of creative crippling for folks who don't want to work.

Secondly, we have entered an era where church membership is haphazard; where many churches are fleecing the flock rather than providing materially for them. And, lest we forget, the US has become more anti-religion with more folks viewing religion as an intrusion rather than a support base. For decades, "community" has been waiting for BigDaddy Government to step in and provide assistance. Imagine the number of government employees who, upon ending the welfare state, would themselves be turning to family, church, community. Private charity, no matter how generous, does not have the capacity to support the numbers today, and those to come, who receive some form of "assistance."

Millions would need to be weaned from welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, AFDC, and "all the rest." Reminds me of breast-feeding. All of my children gradually weaned at about 13 months of age, encouraged by offering them food and sippy cups, until one day they didn't nurse at all. Alas, I think you'll find a lot of feeders who, suckling for years on the system, will have violent tantrums if they lose their teat.

So, while I agree we need to end welfare as we know it - can they be a bit more honest about the fallout when what the government giveth it comes to taketh away? Sheehan claims we live in a police state now - girl, you gotta lot to learn about police states. That kind of ignorant hyperbole makes me want to use the "f" word.

I used to wonder why libertarians and/or the left failed to attract greater numbers. Now I know - they can't wrap their heads around anything. They're political wannabes, as rudderless as any of the self-serving pols we have now. I mean come on folks - shut D.C. down?

Maybe what libertarians and leftists have in common is - they think it would be a blast to just shut the system down and then their particular brand of liberty/freedom will rise up and cure all ills. When 98% of us are handed our "social equality" because the "left" has placed us all on the same footing and the "right" will make sure we stay there. Bipartisanship, finally.

Do these heenesque balloon heads have a clue to the ramifications of shutting down the government, or are they just pulling words out of their rear-ends, that seems to be where their heads are stuck. Far be it for any of them to get off their phony soapboxes and shill for something that might make a tad bit of difference, they could begin with term limits ... and they could stop interviewing one another year after year, swapping praise for the same old failed left/right ideologies.