Rosa Parks Rocks

or Register to post new content in the forum

60 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 25, 2005 11:12 pm

She was 42 when she sat on the bus.  A U.S. Serviceman who was
black was killed a few days Rosa Parks made her stand...he was killed
by the police for the same thing rosa Parks did.  The courage
exhibited here is scary...and commands all of the respect in the world.
 

Oct 26, 2005 7:31 am
rightway:

She was 42 when she sat on the bus.  A U.S. Serviceman who was black was killed a few days Rosa Parks made her stand...he was killed by the police for the same thing rosa Parks did.  The courage exhibited here is scary...and commands all of the respect in the world.  



Oct 26, 2005 11:45 am

I also respect that she stood up, or rather sat down, for herself and did it with quit dignity that commanded we pay attention to her  and her cause..  She never turned herself into a dog an pony show, unlike Cindy Sheehan.

Oct 26, 2005 12:35 pm
babbling looney:

She never turned herself into a dog an pony show, unlike Cindy Sheehan.



Not to hijack the tread, Rise of the Vulcans, by James Mann gives lots of insight into why things are as they are. And does so without throwing political fire bombs. Anyone who wants to understand why we're in Iraq needs to read this book.


Back to Rosa Parks, where would we be without her? That's a scary thought.

Oct 26, 2005 1:14 pm

TJC give me the brief.. Was the book about America the deliver of peace or America the evil empire. Either answer explains what political side of the stick the author is on..



Moveon.org (terrorists) or 51% Americans who voted a certain party into office.

Oct 26, 2005 2:43 pm
executivejock:

TJC give me the brief.. Was the book about America the deliver of peace or America the evil empire. Either answer explains what political side of the stick the author is on..



neither, at least how I read it. It's a chronology of the political lives of the president's closest advisors. Shows what their beliefs are and how they came to power. Mann works or worked for the NY times, so expected a big time bend to the left. Not there. None the less, the book is disturbing in that it shows how this group, with the exception of Powell, believes now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy(read democracy). Sound familiar? If that's what you mean by evil empire then that's in there.



Oct 26, 2005 5:16 pm

now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy


And so.......?


What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.


But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.


Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     


Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

Oct 26, 2005 7:45 pm

What's wrong with a women freaking out after her son dies?


Absolutely nothing wrong. Any mother or father would be destroyed by the death of a child.  Grief is a natural and neccesary process.  So is sex, but I don't want to see a full frontal sex show in public, just as I don't want to see Cindy Sheehan gnashing her teeth, wailing, pouring ashes on her head (and oh by the way smirking at the camera at the same time).  http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/antiwar-protest-ends-with-m ass-arrest/2005/09/27/1127804477879.html    She is having the time of her life in this photo op evidently.  Too bad the time of her life is predicated on the death of her son.


Grief like sex and other moist displays of affection should be done privately.   I have more respect for the likewise grieving parents, children and spouses of the other fallen soldiers who have sucked up the pain and have gone on with their lives.  And yes some of them are also protesting the war as is their perogitve, but with dignity and grace. 

Oct 26, 2005 8:04 pm

Just another random post on this topic.  I am probably old enough to be the parent of many of you (I am guessing) and have had the experience of living in the segregated South for a while as a child. 


My earliest memory of being aware of segregation was when we moved from Los Angeles to some place in Mississipi. My brother and I were about  5 and 6yrs old and having just arrived from a long trip in the backseat of the car, (with ...gasp!!.... no seat belts and we survived to tell the tale), we were thirsty.  My parents pulled up to a public park, very nice with shady trees and lawns.  So we got out and ran up to a drinking fountain.  Just as we were ready to drink some strange lady came up and was upset and said "Don't drink from that water it is the colored fountain!!"   So needless to say we were scared and confused and drank out of the "other" fountain.    Later we snuck back and turned on the water and were very dissappointed that it wasn't colored at all but was clear water just like the other fountain.  We were hoping for blue or green or something.    My parents had to clue us in on the "rules".   It made no sense to us at all.  Fortunately we moved away and went back to California within a year.

Oct 26, 2005 11:23 pm

Orchestrated or not...she could have died for doing what she did.  None of us would do that for such a cause.

Oct 27, 2005 11:20 am

Come on, Sonny, Rightway said nothing incorrect in his post. Parks WAS a member of the NAACP and she had been active prior to her arrest in 1955. In fact, she had refused to give up her seat several times in the years prior to that day, but afaik, she wasn't arrested. That hardly makes her a “radical” or trained activist. She wasn’t the complete babe in the woods as the legend suggest, either.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


There's nothing to suggest that her arrest was staged or managed (as are today’s made-for-TV-press-sheets-in-advance-come-watch-us-get-aresst ed-at-2pm (and bailed out by 2:15) activist events) that the resulting boycott (which started as a single day and grew from there) was anything other than spontaneous. Now, the successful Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins were another matter.


As far as Cindy Sheehan goes, I share your concern that some people hate her, poor addle-minded and dishonest, but ultimately grieving mother that she is. OTOH, I share a deep distaste that many have with her idiotic statements (“end the military occupation of New Orleans”) her dishonesty (her son volunteered to serve and disagreed completely with her about US foreign policy) and her general stupidity (leaving Iraq now, no matter what you think of how we got there, or how we’re conducting the war, would create a bloodbath, embolden terrorists around the world, weaken those who risked everything, their lives included, to support us and grant Al Qaeda a safe haven they otherwise would never have).

Oct 27, 2005 2:17 pm
SonnyClips:

Mike Butler are you familiar with the Republican Senator from Illinois Everett Dirksen and the courageous work he did in favor of civil rights? If your not you should check him out.


Of course. He was the Senate Minority Leader and led a higher percentage of GOP Senators to support civil rights legislation than Democrat Senators did.



He's also the source of one of my favorite Washington DC quotes; "A few billion here, a few billion there, next thing you know you're talking about real money.".

Oct 28, 2005 11:10 am
babbling looney:

now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy


And so.......?


What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.


But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.


Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     


Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

Oct 28, 2005 11:26 am

   I wonder what you would do if your child was to die. You act like Sheehnan is doing all this for attention. I am sure there were people like you back in Rosa Parks day, that were appauled at the fact someone was actually thinking for themselves. However it is important to have people in our society that dont just blindly follow, but make conclusions on their own and speak out if they are not comfortable. I think you have probably been wathcing too much fox news.

Oct 28, 2005 12:44 pm

Nice  You assume that I am a racist because I am disgusted by the over the top public chest beating and wailing by Cindy Sheehan who I do believe is more concerned about publicity than actually honoring and PRIVATELY grieving for her son.   I'm sure she does grieve for the death of her soldier son, however using him and allowing politically motivated people to hoist him on a stick and wave him around for their own purposes is just sick.  You do notice that they pretty much have dropped her like a hot rock when she no longer suited their purposes.


What would I do if my child volunteered for a dangerous occupation and was killed? I don't know,but I'm sure I wouldn't hire a publicity consultant and try to make myself the center of attention.  Yes, I do think she is doing this for attention.  She has been a frustrated protest warrior for many years and this was a perfect opportunity for her to grab the brass ring.


If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but here is the official statement of the people who know Cindy Sheehan best... the father of Casey (remember him?) and his family.


“The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.”


You make some broad assumptions on my television veiwing habits as well.


I am going to assume that you are an idiot.

Oct 28, 2005 12:46 pm
babbling looney:

now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy


And so.......?


What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.


But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.


Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     


Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.



BL, the Army and Marines are falling way short of their recruiting goals, what's stopping you from fighting for what you believe in? Too old, not in good health, how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?

Oct 28, 2005 1:35 pm

how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?


My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".


And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.


PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

Oct 28, 2005 2:50 pm
babbling looney:

how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?


My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".


And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.


PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.



Maybe we need some menopausal troops to get the job done.


Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.

Oct 28, 2005 3:11 pm

[quote=SonnyClips]I think that you have not lost anyone to an untimely death. I believe that TJC45 and Cruiser are reacting to something that is inconsistent in your values. It is very ignoble the way the right have characterized what they deem apropriate grieving and themselves have become parasites on the Sheehan Bandwagon.


You don't know that.  I lost my fiance in the Vietnam War. (Told you I was old.) I also lost many close friends and have those that are permanently disabled both physically and mentally.  The shabby way that they were treated when they returned from war I attribute directly to the media and the protesters that they encouraged in undermining the War. Unlike 100% of the people in the military today, my fiance and friends were NOT volunteers. Whether I thought the Vietnam War was right or wrong at that time is immaterial.


And it IS ignoble the way that the media both right and left have become parasites on what should have been a dignified private grief.  My beef with Cindy Sheehan is that she has encouraged the parasitic vampire embrace of the media and seemed to relish it. 

They have done this as a means of coloring the whole anti-iraq, I call it anti-iraq because most of the protestors I have picketed with have made the distinction, as being frivolous peaceniks. When I was in Graduate school a year or so ago I was active with the interfaith network in Dekalb, Il. One of the women that was instrumental in organizing Rosemarie Slavenas had a son who was a reservist and a helicopter pilot. You can read her and her son Brian's story at the

The New Yorker

The story was written by Calvin Trillin and it is very moving.


A good story and if the people who want to protest the war had use her as a figurehead, her dignity would have created a different outcome.


It's about a women who protested the war and a son who while against the Iraq war went and was killed when he was called up. I drink beers with the guy and shared mutual friends who ran the gamut of political views. I wonder why the Right Wing Media never latched on to her story. Why they focused so much on Sheehan who is so obviously unprepared for her role.

Slavenas a retired professor holds a PhD and is very gifted in the area of protest organizing. I submit that the right wing media has a commercial interest in watching this Sheenhan who is so obviously a pathetic bundle of nerves implode. We have a long history of this type of voyeurism look at, Judy Garland, Betty Ford, Kitty Dukakis and Cortney Love we are glued to their self destruction we watch it as entertainment whether we acknowledge our shadenfreude or we merely continue to follow the story while all the time claiming to be appalled.


I love it that you know schadenfreude!  I agree it is a sick voyeurism  that is encouraged by the media to create revenue.  And this is exactly what I found disgusting about this entire Cindy Sheehan episode, which thankfully seems to have expired a timely death.


Slavenas would have been the war protest movements Rosa Parks but no outlets other than the New Yorker seems to be interested in viewing contrary acts as anything more than a Tijuana Donkey Show. All titilation and no substance. Make sure you read the New Yorker story before you throw around any of the cliche's about being a liberal dumbass. I ask this because even if you do not agree with me I would hope you would take my perspective seriously and contemplate the opposing views.

Whether or not I am opposed to or support this "current" war (and you don't know because I haven't said ) is also immaterial.    It seems to me that you understand my point better in your references to the Tijuana Donkey Show.    The media "wants" to create a circus for their own purposes and Cindy Sheehan is/was helping them.  Some people want to re-create their youth and enjoy the adrenaline rush of protest, some media have a political agenda to support the war, some to protest the war, some don't care about the war or the young men and women in harms way and are more interested in just harming an administration that they hate.  Some people have honest motives like Ms Salvenas seems to have, however, it seems to me that most involved in this entire unsavory episode are self serving. 


Having seen the harm that well intentioned people can cause to the indiviual solders in the past, I fear that we are going down that same road again. 


I am reminded of two phrases or sayings.  First from the musical hair.


Oh, how can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud; Easy to say no

And especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about the bleeding crowd?


And..   When you are up to your ass in alligators it is too late to remember that the original solution was to drain the swamp.

Oct 28, 2005 3:29 pm

Last post on this topic, I have wasted too much time here


Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.


You have no effing idea what my views are on our foreign policy.  I haven't said. I said I vote for people who I think/hope are going to express my preferences and don't vote for them again if they turn out to be false. Take to read I vote across party lines and hold opinions from libertarian to conservative on many different issues.  I didn't say I support the war in Iraq or that I support the policies of  "this" administration.  I also, as an American, support American foreign policy that supports American interests and not the interests of other countries.  Why that should be unusual, I don't know.   If we don't like what they are advancing, we can vote the bums out of office or even impeach the bums. 


You want to project what you think my views are.  Get a clue, buy a vowel and learn to read without putting your own preconceptions on some one else.


Must go take a chill pill now.