Dear Cindy
an Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan
"If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they
would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam
veterans. In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were
reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn't
happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been
an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been
in Iraq."
by Seymour Hersh
Dear Cindy,
This is an open letter in response to your passionate message of
verbal abuse ... obviously ghostwritten, since your medicated
state makes you incapable of coherent thought, much less
enthusiastic conviction ... but then you've been a shill for
agitators and propagandists for years. We normally don't respond
to praise or blame or spam, and I know that you don't expect a
reply, but this is still a constitutional republic, and the right
of free speech means that I have the option of
refutation, of rebuttal, of rejecting allegations and accusations
... a situation terribly shocking for you and your ilk, but
when you're wrong, you're WRONG!
American latitude grants you the privilege of being indubitably
wrong, so go for it!
And besides Cindy (may I call you Cindy? ... you can
call me Ed, because I don't respond well to baby-killer and warmonger), you, as a national
spokesperson, despite being a pathetic puppet of the fifth
column though you be, are a fairly big cheese
compared to the small beer of our little literary
magazine on the ramifications of war. Or should that analogy more
accurately be: that you are a pretty fat rat in our little trap.
So, we shall avail ourselves of this opportunity, be it merely a
paltry squeak against the coordinated media roar of your backers,
to address your indictments.
Without an investment or payment of any kind, you have inherited
the right to complain ... and though you despise me and mine, we
are the guarantors of your indulgence. You needn't thank
us, because we too are beholden, but we strongly object to the
disdain and disrespect shown our way of life ... imperfect though
it may be, it has been a model for the modern world. Although you
are merely a dupe of the monolithic exclusivity that has been
attempting to hijack our culture in recent times ... radical
Liberalism is the successor refuge of stymied communists
and toppled fascists ... we are the most heterodox nation in
history, and that freedom bothers you. Well Cindy, that's too bad
... into every life a little rain must fall.
In your backers' continuing effort to promote you as a symbol of
suffering and sacrifice in the ongoing War Against Terrorism (and
let's get our terms correct; the War in Iraq has been over since
the old regime fell and was replaced by a new government ...
they've even had free elections under new laws!), as if you are
the only mother in history to have ever lost her son in battle;
but that's just more rhetoric, more style over substance. Let's
not quibble, since there's no sense in attacking your style when
your substance is so easily assaulted. Not only have you changed
your position on the value of this war since your son's death,
alienating your now divorced husband, who is also mourning his
deceased son, but you have personally benefited from your son's
demise by receiving all of the tax-exempt payments authorized an
unmarried servicemember killed in the line of duty. The only
problem with your claim to fame is that you haven't bothered to
mark or maintain your son's gravesite ... like your SGLI and DIC
benefits, the grave marker would be provided by the
heartless government at no charge to you! Just
in case you don't know, due to your busy schedule of political
commitments, your son's gravesite is being tended by veterans who
have volunteered their time for a fallen comrade.
These petty details would be irrelevant if they were not your
principal credential for protesting the war. Motherhood has not
distinguished you, neither has your mortification been noteworthy
... there are more weeping mothers in Iraq and Afghanistan than
America, just as there were more widows in Vietnam than America.
Your son made the sacrifice deserving
of note and respect, not you!
One might reasonably inquire about whether the public paradigm of
protest shouldn't be an unimpeachable paragon, an impeccable
apotheosis? ... and if not, why not? But like the saying goes:
I've known some brave and noble martyrs, and Cindy, you're
no martyr! But consider who's uplifted you,
promoting you to a level of high-visibility incompetence ... are
any of them superlative exemplars of venerable idealism? Simply
calling the representative mediocrity a proletarian
elite does not make it true, even if the mutual
contradiction could be assimilated.
Ironically, you have challenged our credentials to
publish a literary magazine, as if your mythical knuckle-dragging
savage were peopling the various branches of the uniformed
services ... wishing won't make it so. It's ironic because,
unlike those of you who have made a profession of dispensing
opinions, the military is the closest organization to a
meritocracy yet invented by mankind ... if someone doesn't
perform to standard then they don't get promoted, and if they
don't get promoted then they don't stay. I won't belabor the
point, and I won't provide you with free ammunition (I believe
the apt cliché is: pearls before swine), so when
you finally discover everything, and it's been explained to you
... well Cindy, read 'em an' weep. As for editing and
publishing, you don't want to go there either ... I am
poor but honest, and your ilk will not bear comparative scrutiny.
It has been noted that a reasonable contrarian is the
rarest of human elements, and I am cognizant of the Leftist
appeal to emotionalism, having forsaken rationalism (even under
the guise of dialectical materialism) as too intellectual and
unproductive. There can be serene communion in the comfortable
commonality of belief, in shared effort and satisfied
fulfillment. There is a sacrament in meeting the challenge and
resisting defeat. Kindred spirits can touch one another's
hearts and minds in a manner so overwhelming that it is
as near transcendence as mere mortals are ever likely to emulate.
I have felt it with others in combat, and you have felt it with
others in the Peace Movement. We have sung our separate anthems:
mine a sacred paean, and yours a secular doxology. We have been
able to sympathetically finish other's sentences because we share
their perspective. What reinforces me is knowing that I'm
sustaining our cultural tradition; and what reinforces you is
finding another escaped mental patient to share your diagnosis.
Your ilk has proclaimed the death of God and converted politics
into a new religion. This is America ... and Cindy, you have the
inalienable right to be wrong.
Because free speech encompasses a multitude of sins,
there need be no consensus on ascertained truth or received
wisdom, just as there is no criterion for speakers. If the
government cannot censor, and specialist only regulate themselves
in each separate discipline, then the reader or listener is
enjoined to act as his own filter ... caveat lector.
This is particularly evident with business advertising and
political sloganeering, wherein whatever's prima facie
is misrepresented by weasel words. A military crudity
defines this state as: Opinions are like assholes,
everybody's got one, and they all stink! But this phenomenon
is no less true in the realm of hard evidence where there is no
consensus on data, and every advance has been against the
prevailing conventional wisdom. A comrade once asked me:
Why should your opinion matter more than your percentage of
the population? ... and I, like you Cindy, answered:
Because I have knowledge and insight that others lack.
But whether that sincere belief is persuasive is someone else's
decision, for which conclusion they must assume their own
responsibility.
Based upon the proposition that most people are too stupid to
conduct their own affairs, you and your ilk have presumed to
arrogate our shared institutions unto yourselves for your own
ends. Your presumption is ludicrous since you, individually and
collectively, lack the experience and expertise to manage the
systems you are perverting or dismantling under the rubric of
good intentions ... thanks anyway Cindy, but not only
don't I need a nanny but I don't want to go where you are pushing
me! Your presumptuous underestimation of your fellow citizens ...
you really can fool all the people all the time ...
doesn't empower you and your Cause, but demonstrates how
profoundly and acutely embarrassing your allegations and
exaggerations truly are for the general public, whom you'd better
pray never loses patience with your childish exhibitionism! ...
how do you expect normal people to seriously consider your
platform when a procession of freaks and creeps are mocking the
very rights they're abusing?! Will you wrinkled old radicals
PLEASE put your unfashionable clothes back on?
... your pudges and prolapses are a final revenge on the Sexual
Revolution!
Not that proof is either necessary or sufficient when contending
with such as you, but even the recent anti-war march from the
Vietnam War memorial to the Pentagon is a case in point ...
presumably reminiscent of levitating the Puzzle Palace way back
in the Good Ol' Days. Wake up Cindy, this is not 17 March 1967
and Vietnam, but another era and another region, with new troops
fighting a different enemy. This march was supposedly organized
as a nationwide coalition of protest groups with substantial
funding and media support, but the grass-roots counter-protest,
coordinated by a Gathering of Eagles and Move America
Forward, that was organized by word-of-mouth by
volunteers to prevent the vandalism your groups have engaged in
previously, had a much better attendance that sent a truer
message about popular support for the war. It's not that America
loves war, it refuses to quit and permit desecration of
its tenets. And although you were outnumbered, you were neither
molested nor silenced ... there was no Saint Patrick's Day
Massacre on the fourth anniversary of the so-called Iraq
War. In the arena of honest disagreement, you and your ilk have
never shown that level of restraint, of self discipline, of
reciprocal respect.
Being lectured by failed has-beens and misguided
wannabes reminds me that, to paraphrase Schopenhauer,
What you say about us says more about you than about us!
As a writer, researcher, and editor, I know this to be true; and
this insight may be extended to speakers and actors, such as
yourself ... people who follow a script, a catechism or a
little red book. You and other traitors sincerely
believe that you will be exempt from the consequences of your
duplicitous aid and comfort to our enemies, from their
reactionary repression, because you were a willing cat's-paw (yes
Cindy, there really is a sucker born every minute, and guess who
she is?!), but that's only because you are purblind. The history
of man's inhumanity to his fellow man is too well documented for
any sentient adult to pretend otherwise; and if so, then that
individual needs a guardian to prevent her from hurting herself
or others. Thus because you believe a certain thing ... right,
wrong, or indifferent ... you believe that it's the only certain
thing, and that others should believe it as certainly ... and if
not, should be made to believe it, or be made to act as though
they believed it ... which you further believe will insulate you
against ever being confronted with your own foibles and
fallacies. Cindy, that kind of rote homogeneity is stifling, and
anti-American.
You allege that anti-establishment civil disobedience is, a
priori, more patriotic than conformity; and that deconstructive
democracy is, ipso facto, more American than conventionality.
It's irrational, nonsensical, and downright silly, but believe it
if you must, Cindy. And despite your factionalism, partisanship,
and gerrymandering, most voters are decent people trying to live
uncorrupted lives in the septic effluence you are spreading.
Unlike the earlier counterculture, which proffered positive
alternatives to negative trends, your neo-contraculture is
dispersing negativity and immorality, like an infestation of
perversity. Although you and your ilk are claiming that
defeat is a higher form of morality, you
yourselves are not willing to accept defeat. Each time you are
rejected, at the polls or the courts, you contrive a new
methodology, a new maneuver or strategy, for imposing the
unwanted upon the unwilling. Since you didn't learn this lesson
on the playground as a child, on the sports field as an athlete,
or on the battlefield as a soldier, allow me to tender this
immutable truth: those who cannot accept defeat are condemned to
extinction.
America does not, has never expected, everyone to agree, but we
expect loyalty to that system of mutual respect, imperfect though
it may be. Anyone can claim anything, and so it goes ... one
obversive contradiction following another absurd inversion. When
you define yourself as a better person than your opposition, your
opposition is automatically discredited, and their arguments
rendered moot. A proliferating Humpty Dumpty illogicality. Except
for the facts, Cindy ... those boring mundane facts. You may want
the inmates to run the asylum but, at least for the near future,
sanity prevails over the unholy clamor of the kook fringe. You
claim to oppose the war and support the troops,
but you do neither! Pacifists without religion don't have a post-war life plan, and anti-war protestors are defined by
the existence of conflict ... in fact, they are so aggressive and
contentious that their behavior merely demonstrates their true
motive: cowardice. Political demonstration is simply showmanship
... just pseudointellectual self-aggrandizement, or pseudo-altruistic self-indulgence. As for honoring the troops,
we already know how you've dishonored your own son, but this
doctrinaire shibboleth is just another canard perpetrated upon
the innocent public ... despite the adherence of political-correctness, they are still naïve enough to believe that
words mean something, and haven't realized the deception
of your doublespeak. Parading our casualties, like an
exhibition of victims in an indefensible enterprise, is
NOT support ... it's obscene exploitation
disguised as honorific pageantry with the cautionary subtext:
this terrible mayhem is war's only result. I don't know
if the nation has the will to resist such propaganda, but if it
doesn't, the war will not just be over there. I reject
your claim to superpatriotism, and dispute your arguments and
tactics. This war is not about body counts ... no war
has ever been ... but if the immaterial is sacrificed for the
material, it will not only dishonor all material sacrifices, but
will compel all the surviving material to endure under a new
immateriality. In other words, your cohort of freaks and creeps,
of kooks and cowards will have a new master ... not Neo-Puritans
and Neo-Abolitionists, but genuine bad
guys. And, having nullified the military and
castrated all the real men, who will protect you from evil? Who
will save you from the consequences of your own inanity? Who will
save us from the destruction your malfeasance will wrought? It
would almost be worth the inordinate devastation to see you et al
get your just deserts!
Our disagreement is substantial and fundamental. There is no
compromise on principles, and there can only be relative
accommodation to a certain point before there's concession; so I
don't expect either of us to ever persuade the other. However, we
also disagree on the basis of our disagreement. Not only do you
(and the Protest Movement) demand privileges, calling them
rights, which oblige me (and other law abiding
taxpayers) to tolerate your antics in the specious name of
freedom, but you monopolize the debate, so that only one
sanctioned version of events is circulated. In other words, you
are using liberty to distort, if not destroy liberty! ... that is
not an acceptable tactic on the battlefield, and neither is it
acceptable in the public forum.
We think that most of our critics have reacted to the name of our
publication more than its contents, since most (including you)
have not bothered to read what we are saying, and yet you contend
that we are illegitimate, unrepresentative, predisposed. In a
way, there's no point trying to communicate with bigots like you,
along the same line as arguing with a fool, but if we do not
refute, or at least counter, your blatherskite, then some people
might believe such tripe. I have encountered true
believers on the battlefield, and when captured, they not
only did not appreciate the difference between our two sides, but
they thought me weak and stupid for not mistreating them ...
giving them medical care after trying to kill them was beyond
their comprehension ... so I don't expect you to understand
either. I, and soldiers like me, and this magazine, and other
unbiased publications, represent civilization; while you
and your ilk and its one-sided agenda represent a New Dark Age, a
form of reversionary barbarism.
Your declaration of this literary magazine's illegitimacy is
merely code speak for uncensored or unjuried, which
means beyond your control. If your co-conspirators infiltrate an
organization or institution, alter it fundamentally without
alerting others to the change by an overt challenge, then you can
claim authority by usurpation. This is as true for newspapers
of record as it is for colleges and courts and hospitals.
Humanitarianism is now political, businesses must be
socially progressive, and government must not seek God's
blessings. Taxpayers subsidize the persistent failures of
humanism, but conventional wisdom is no longer concerned
with success. Just as every discovery and invention has flouted
the entrenched power of the status quo, any entrenched authority,
for review or otherwise, becomes abusive without the checks
and balances of redress. Your missive does not qualify as
redress because redress in publishing is not pullulating hate
speech.
The point of view of this literary magazine, posted repeatedly
throughout this website, is an open forum on the insights of
wartime experience. We don't tell writers what to say, except to
make their presentations more effective or complete. The author
is responsible for his opinions, and we have published works we
personally disagree with, recognizing the perspective to be
valid. We would publish more polemics but for the inferiority of
their prose ... we would even publish you Cindy, even though you
and your ilk would never publish us! Your dislike of or
disagreement with the author's content or conclusion compels your
progressive orthodoxy to prevent exposure of contrary
perspectives. You particularly object to the humor we have
featured in our collected aggregation, but Cindy, gallows
humor is sometimes the only thing that
keeps us from going crazy in combat ... too bad that you didn't
learn that from your son. It's unfortunate that you have never
discovered the joy of liberation, the happiness of security, the
pleasure of freedom ... the laughter of well fed children
cavorting in the shadow of protective arms is practically the
only genuine repayment for the deaths of the few good men and
women who bestowed it! ... that you are too lugubrious to
appreciate this simple fact is another reason not to follow your
grim doctrine.
You claim that we who serve, who have defended our nation's
interests, who have gone in harm's way to preserve and protect,
are mere pawns of a deceptive foreign policy ... and yet you are
merely a professional mourner ... at least we pawns can
be promoted, while all you can ever be is fired when a better
prostitute is recruited for their righteous Cause! I have sworn
an oath to preserve the Constitution and defend this nation
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Although I'm retired,
that oath is still binding. I will defend your right to disagree
with public policy, but when your disloyalty jeopardizes this
nation's standing and security, you will have become just another
target of opportunity. So be careful what you say and to
whom, because words have meaning and acts have
consequences.
I know that every epoch has been dismayed over the disintegration
of their cherished traditions, but the past always came to us,
regardless of the incremental decay, in a way that allowed us to
extend our forebears reach. America seems to be
suffering a moral and mental bankruptcy, and it appears that we
lack the fortitude to control the social juggernaut that's
careening through our streets. There are too many signs that we
do not have the clarity and courage to defend ourselves, and
those signs are visible not only in our political and judicial
institutions but throughout American society and western
civilization. Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign
of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal
dangers. We are dawdling while our enemies prepare our
destruction, and we are sheltering fellow travelers who
would aid them by weakening our defenses. Talk is
not cheap if it forestalls adequate defensive
preparations, since talk has then become a tactic, a ploy, a
device in the Culture War. American culture, from its Judeo-Christian roots to its Enlightenment theories, is besieged by
foreign beliefs and militaries. To paraphrase Otto von Bismarck,
this pitch of contentious noise and deafening clamor, of bitter
ardor and vengeful schemes practically guarantees that the great
questions confronting our society will not be settled by
reasonable debate and respectful tolerance, but by means of iron
and blood.
Your hate mail proves to us that conflicts will never be
resolved ... that we'll always have a new war to ponder and
discuss, and that this magazine will not lack for subject matter.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed; and for those
who do not understand, no explanation is possible. Instead of
sending more hate speech our way, try spending a little
time caring for what your son cared for.
"Tolerance has been one of the virtues of western civilization.
But virtues can be carried to extremes that turn them into vices.
Toleration of intolerance is a particularly dangerous vice to
which western nations are succumbing, both within their own
countries and internationally. Double standards are being wrapped
in the mantle of morality."
by Thomas Sowell
by Ed Staff
... who is retired from the U.S. Army, has since been a
counselor, artisan, and writer, with numerous essays published in
chapbooks and magazines.
|