Monday, January 23, 2006

Cindy Sheehan: The Heat and the Fury

Cindy Sheehan is advancing a trendy new term today in an essay entitled “Matriotism”. A matriot, according to Ms. Sheehan:

"loves his/her country but does not buy into the exploitive phrase of "My country right or wrong.”

Matriots would fight their own battles, but take a dim view of having to do so, and would seldom resort to violence to solve conflict! Patriots cowardly hide behind the flag and eagerly send young people to die to fill their own pocketbooks.

War will end forever when we matriots stand up and say: "No, I am not giving my child to the fake patriotism of the war machine which chews up my flesh and blood to spit out obscene profits."

You can follow the link I provided if you want, but the essay is along the same line of the stuff I dissected from it in the excerpt above.

One of the reasons I started my own blog was to express opinions on ideas or issues I believe are important, backing them up with reasoned out thought.

Ms Sheehan does the exact opposite in nearly every single public appearance, or in the muddled thoughts she commits to writing. She falls back on two devices to justify positions: the moral gravitas her opinion gains from having lost a son in war; and, arguably worse, the annoying, dogmatic sloganeering so typical of some radical 1960s movement.

Let’s face it, the term matiotism itself sounds like the shrill drivel that emanates from those on the fringe who want to spew mindless disdain at "the powers that be", with much emotion and little thought. It appeals to the university set and the professional protesting class, but I could not ever see my grandparents, lifelong democrats, buying into Cindy's radical chic.

So I say to you Cindy, if you really want to change my mind about the war or any policy of this administration or the next, argue with reason, and leave the emotion and cliché back wherever it is that you call home.

1 comment:

Rev J D said...

hi thanks for the link to the original article. i'll check it.

reason is conveyed with words. if a word does not exist to concisely mean something, it gets pretty difficult to put forth a eloquent argument based on reason. imo, its good that the word "matriot" exists, because the concept needs a word so it can be talked about more eloquently. however, the word "matriot" itself rolls off the tongue a little oddly and lends too much reference to patriot, which, sadly, has come to exemplify a more jingo attitude.

with the common conception of "patriot" being usurped, perhaps "matriot" is simply the new word for the concept of what used to be known as "patriot"?