Thursday, October 26, 2006

I have been getting a lot of emails asking me to help support a book which, I understand, exposes Cindy Sheehan's alleged addiction to pornography and adult chat sites following the death of her son in Iraq.

I am no friend of Ms. Sheehan's, and have objected strenuously to almost everything she's ever said since coming to the public eye.

But I will not be part of promoting such a book. To attack her on those terms is unseemly, classless, and unchristian. That sort of polemic illustrates much of what is wrong with discourse today.

I will criticize Ms. Sheehan on her public acts alone, and will not associate myself with that kind of pettiness and juvenility.

At least, not without a good laugh line in there somewhere.

If Ms. Sheehan were crusading against pornography in public while privately indulging, it would be different, but she is not. I do not sit in judgement. She lost her son and her husband in quick succession. Maybe she did something to occupy her racing mind at night, maybe not. Other people turn to drugs or alcohol.

I hereby commence the cutting of slack.

Splash, out


The right is proving day by day that they just don't understand "morality" they don't know what it is, or what it's for, much less when to use it.

If your losing readership, your at least insuring some readers that will read here for years to come. Readers that want sane discorse, willing to hear from the other side.
From what I got from the book, having only skimmed it at some length, was the contrast in reaction to the shared experience of parents losing sons in war. Of cource, the parts that are getting the misleading attention are the revelations about Cindy, but it also tells the story of Casey's father and that of another family which is much more uplifting, from my point of view, anyway. It may deserve a second look without the prejudice that comes from the attention only one aspect of it has been given.
Hey, Jason - you know what? I had no idea Sheehan may (or may not) have a porn problem until you repeated it on your blog. It's the classic "How long have you been beating your wife" tactic. Excellent. You've managed to sustain the character attack will maintaining the fraud of neutrality - or even distain. Well done. Glenn Reynolds would be proud. Heh. Indeed.

No. The post takes no position on Sheehan's alleged porn addiction. I even use the term "alleged" in the very first reference, right off the bat.

It is already well-known in the blogosphere that the book makes the allegation. The fact that you yourself didn't know is not dispositive...I've already read dozens of mentions of the book, and actually heard the idea aired out on the Glen Beck radio show, which is one of the most listened to radio shows in America. At drive time no less. So that cat is out of the bag.

Blaming me for it is quite pointless. I'm one of the last people on the right saying I don't know (and really, I don't. I don't trust what I've heard). I'm also one of the first saying I don't care.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!