Fusion power advocate?

LOL

Hee hee.

#1 (MTW)

Yes. This might take a little explaining.

LaRouche has claimed authorship of new discipline, "Riemann-LaRouche Economics", and is in favor of measuring the "energy flux density" to determine the most thriving economies (presumably an economy run by him as neo-Platonic philosopher king would best maximize said metric {/sarcasm}).

One of his front organizations publish(es/ed) a magazine called FUSION, which is all about promoting fusion power... except for when it mentions LaRouche as a preeminent economist, etc., etc. They used to hawk it in airports. They used to have a list price of $3. They used to pretend not to have change if you told them you only had a five dollar bill on you.

The connection, as near as I can tell, is that fusion reactors also have a very high energy flux density.

LaRouche also has said he thinks that the planet Earth can and should support a population of 18 billion or so, since that would mean there would be approximately 3x as meany geniuses alive as there are now.

as I said WRT Ms Sheehan, he trippin'.

I'd like to say something about Casey Sheehan. I would like to see more attention paid to this fallen soldier. Many will forget what he did because of the actions of his mother. He deserves honor and respect. I cannot help but believe that if ever a soul was unrestful, it may be the one who's own mother discredits the difficult work and sacrifice that cost him his life. It is up to us to grant his soul some semblance of peace through honoring him and letting him know that his deeds are not without worth. In turn, maybe he can find a way to bring peace to his family. Perhaps an outpouring of gratitude from us will help with that also.

Picture of Casey Sheehan:

May he rest in peace.

Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has an Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan up on their new blog which is well worth a read. Maybe she'll take him up on his offer, but I'm not holding my breath...

My own Cindy Sheehan analogy: The Pig Coitus Argument. Lyndon Johnson would have understood her very well, I think.

One reason that Cindy Sheehan has caught public attention is that her camp-out draws attention to the fact that GW is taking a 5 week vacation while people are dying and being maimed in Iraq with no timeouts. His comments about his need to "go on with his life" and "live a balanced life" were pretty much the most inappropriate response available.
Since most WOC readers do not read the Nation, they might enjoy these quotes from President Of Leisure
"Often, when an executive faces lingering questions about his skills, he works extra hard to make sure that every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed.
Not so George W. Bush.
Indeed, if the "CEO of the USA" who is currently enjoying a five-week sojourn at his ranch in Texas keeps vacationing at the same rate, he will have spent the better part of two years of his presidency away from work.
Bush achieved a leisure landmark this month. The previous record for presidential slacking-off was 335 days. On August 18, Bush surpassed that number of days off, and he still has more than three years left in his second term.
Britain's Financial Times newspaper has dubbed Bush "the best-rested president in U.S. history."
That's a dubious distinction for a man who is not known for his attention to detail. Critics have not hesitated to suggest that the President's rest-ethic has cost the country dearly--after all, it was in August 2001, during the President's first extended stay in Crawford, that a briefing paper crossed Bush's desk detailing Osama bin Laden's intention to launch terrorist attacks within the United States. Instead of putting the country on high alert, the President put the report aside and continued relaxing--returning to Washington only a few days before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
While Bush may not be very good at managing major endeavors--he ran four corporations into the ground and then took a make-work job as a baseball team executive before finally turning to the family business of politics--the President is no slacker when it comes to rest and relaxation.
Now, if only he'd help the rest of us to get a break.
While Bush has been taking almost one week out of every month off since assuming the presidency, a substantial proportion of Americans are lucky if they get one week a year of paid vacation. And millions of workers get no compensated time off.
The United States, unlike other industrialized countries, fails to set a base standard for paid holidays. European countries have long required corporations to provide workers with three, four or even five weeks of paid vacation time. "Even developing countries often force companies to allow employees some time to recharge their batteries," the Financial Times notes. "El Salvador, Indonesia and Mongolia have all established a minimum of 10 to 15 days paid leave a year."
That's hardly a break at all when compared with Bush's annual average of almost ten weeks of vacation. But its a good deal more than most American workers will ever enjoy under the current system. Indeed, Americans are now working almost 500 more hours a year than their Dutch counterparts and thirty-seven hours--almost a full week--more than the average worker in the famously overworked country of Japan.
That's a radical reversal of the circumstance that existed in the 1950s and early '60s, when the Japanese and the Europeans worked more hours than Americans--and when Americans enjoyed greater prosperity and, if polls are to be believed, a greater sense of satisfaction with their lives.
Is it any wonder that Americans now complain that they have less time to spend with their families, less time for volunteering in their communities and less time for recreation and physical fitness than at any point in history? How appropriate then that, when reflecting on Bush's time-off record, economist Phineas Baxandall, of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, observed that "George Bush is one of the few Americans who has time for family values."

The idea that the President, indeed any President, is "on vacation" and "at leisure" when out of the White House has always been a ludicrous and silly attack.

Robin,
You can choose to stay inside the echo room of GOP spin, but the US public sees it differently (as does the world press).

Claiming that you are "hard at work" while you ride your mountain bike and "clear brush" in a managed photo op is truly "ludicrous and silly", except to the shrinking corps of true believers.

Maybe I should try to convince my boss that I am "hard at work" while I ride my mountain bike and clear brush, and see how long the paychecks keep coming...

Tom,

Priceless.

I look forward to your critique of the jihadis.

Tom, the attack has been lame for decades. It has nothing to do with "echo chambers", your attack ignores the reality of the job. It remains lame today.

Meanwhile, you've failed to distract from the reality that Cindy Sheehan and her association with the anti-semitic and pro-terrorist elements of the whackier Left embarrasses not the President but those who think she "stands" for anything.

First there was the chickenhawk, and now we have the vactionhawk!

Would it be better if Bush hid out in the Whitehouse bowling alley? Heh, those pesky reporters will never know I'm goofing off now!

Should we extend this argument to the whole country? None of us should get a vacation until our boys come
home! Man the protest lines!

OMG. We need a national vacation policy!

I've seen an awful lot of the Prez on TV for someone on vacation. Weird.

"OMG. We need a national vacation policy!"
We do not "need" a national vacation policy, but I for one would welcome laws mandating minimum vacation standards that at least allow the US to catch up to El Salvador, Indonesia, and Mongolia. Of course I do not expect much support for this concept on a conservative website.

People do not have to agree with Sheehan's wilder claims to recognize that she embodies tragic US losses in Iraq. GOP pundits and true believers are free to ridicule, attack, and deride Sheehan, but public opinion polls clearly show the character assassination technique is showing diminishing returns in the political arena. Bush/Rove attachment to the politics of personal attack is so strong that I do not expect any change of tactics despite the mushrooming blowback from attacks on Wilson, Sheehan, McCain, etc.,etc.

By attacking Sheehan as a person, rather than addressing the ongoing debacle in Iraq, bloggers serve in a small way as part of the baying chorus of GOP attack dogs. Time will tell if this is a winning strategy.

Thanks for that. Brightened up my day!

Whats the difference between Bush cycling in Crawford and jogging in DC? Is Bush expected to be crafting policy at all times? Come on, get real. Bush makes more decisions from Crawford in a week than most of us make in a year. And more important decisions at that. Personally it wouldnt make me feel any better if he was holed up in the Oval Office banging interns, but thats just me.

The only tragic loss Cindy Sheehan embodies involves her mind.

Casey Sheehan, an adult with a mind of his own who volunteered knowing the situation and the potential sacrifice that was implied, is a loss indeed but not a tragic one. He died doing something he believed in, and I salute him and his bravery.

His mother, who denies her son's adult choices through her actions, associates closely with anti-semites, and calls the foreign al-Qaeda terrorists who come to Iraq to kill people praying in mosques and saw people's heads off "freedom fighters"... well, she's another piece of work entirely.

The comparison to LaRouche was and is entirely apt.

Joe, if in the service of ideology you can deny that the death of child is a tragedy to a parent, then I do not think we have any common ground for discussion.
Do you have children?
The death of my children under any circumstance would be a tragedy to me.
trag·e·dy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trj-d)
n. pl. trag·e·dies
1.A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.
2.A play, film, television program, or other narrative work that portrays or depicts calamitous events and has an unhappy but meaningful ending.
3.A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life: an expedition that ended in tragedy, with all hands lost at sea.

Tom,

Let's just say this is a subject with which I'm acquainted. I repeat: Casey Sheehan was an adult. He deliberately chose to put himself in harm's way for others, and died as a result.

That may be sad. It may be a grave loss. It is not a tragedy. A society in which people did NOT volunteer to do such things... THAT would be a tragedy.

Casey Sheehan's fate was not tragic. He did a noble thing, and acted properly. His mother's, however, is - see esp. definition #1.

Tom, by recasting Casey Sheehan as "a child" you are engaging in an extremely offensive and dishonest rhetoric. That little talking point is just inherently an intentional lie. Sheehan was an adult who had repeatedly volunteered both to be in the service and to be where he was, and to join the mission on which he was killed.

We do not indeed have common ground for discussion. And that is because your own rhetoric demonstrates a lack of character. You dishonor Casey Sheehan in a very grotesque way by your attempt to portray him in that manner. I find it quite disgusting.

Cindy Sheehan's statements just get nuttier.

The real problem with Sheehan is that she helps polarize the debate between rabid pro-Bush idealogues and extreme left anti-war nutcases.

Bushes Iraq-war-support poll numbers are not in the toilet due to a fundamental shift of the American populace away from supporting the war - they plumetting poll numbers reflecting a genuine disenchantment with the manner in which the war is conducted. The real debate should be about the competency, or lack thereof, of the current White House when it comes to the military actions taken since 9/11.

This is the area of the debate that a mother of a fallen soldier can level devastating criticisms against the President. Rather than declaring that her child should not have died in what many feel is a worthy cause, she instead should be demanding that those who send our sons and daughters into harms way do so in a manner that ensures their livers are sacrificed reluctantly, effectively, and honorably.

It is in these latter areas that Bush et al have lost the faith of most Americans. They are the gand that couldn't (won't?) shoot straight, and many parents of men and women serving in Iraq no longer feel that this Administration cherishes those soldiers enough.

I live about 82 miles from Crawford, Texas, and GWB's helicopter flies over my house when he heads out for press tours and stump speeches. Even in the heart of Bush country public opinion on the management of the war has turned against the President.

I am so tired of hearing Cindy Sheehan referred to as "anti-semitic". It's something that a lot of Bush supporters just luv to repeat. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell from googling '"nancy sheehan" "anti-semitic"', this is the only quote I can come up with:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.

If people think that is anti-semitic, then they are just confused. I get annoyed when people play the race card, and just as annoyed when someone confuses complaints about Israel with anti-semitism.

In case anyone is confused, there are these people who call themselves neocons. They are not exclusively Jewish, although they are very sympathetic to Israel. This is not to say I agree with her contention. For the record, I don't think we invaded Iraq primarily for Israel, but I do think it was one of the reasons. Nevertheless, no matter whether or not you agree, it's quite a stretch to call her statements anti-semitic.

In addition, for those who don't know, PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) is a neocon organization. When Bill Clinton was in office, they sent him a couple open letters urging for the invasion of Iraq. Many of those who signed these letters either currently or recently worked in the Pentagon and state department. This includes people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and John Bolton.

If there are some relevant quotes out there that I didn't mention, please let me know.

Robin,
You crack me up. After the character attack on Sheehan, now it is a character attack on me, proving my original point.
At Dictionary.com we have the following definitions of child.
child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.A person between birth and puberty.
2.An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
3.One who is childish or immature.
4.A son or daughter; an offspring.

Clearly, I was using the word child in the sense of definition 4, as offspring/descendant. Indeed, my own "children" no longer fit definition 1. If using a word in a sense clearly defined in the dictionary is a "lie", then I suggest that you go to the same dictionary and look up the word "lie".

Any reasonable person knows that Casy Sheehan did not fit definitions 1,2, or 3 and would understand that definition 4 was intended.

Cindy Sheehan's behavior is completely consonant with my own experience of bereaved parents. Parents who have lost children often try to make sense of their loss by trying to prevent future losses to others. For example, MADD (mothers against drunk drivers), was founded out of that same impulse. Parents who lost a child to a skiing head injury have campaigned for helmets, even buying helmets for others. Parents of a son lost in an avalanche started a foundation to make avalanche transceivers cheaper and more available.

Sheehan's efforts against the war are not some nefarious plot, but an expression of the same impulse to give meaning to a tragic loss. This normal human impulse is invisible to those looking thru partisan lenses.

Tom V, you crack me up. Your lame "the President should not be on vacation!" whine was old when FDR was President - and it hasn't become any less stupid in the intervening 70 years.

And of course, you continue to shuck and jive around Cindy Sheehan's own behaviour and publicly-exressed beliefs, which she is trading on her son's death in order to promote and which drives the very comparison you object to. The most salient thing about her public persona, we are learning, is NOT the fact that she has lost a son. Any more than the most salient aspect of LaRouche's is his determined advocacy of fusion power to solve the energy crisis.

And I am more than slightly suspicious of the "grief" component as well. More than slightly suspicous, in fact, that her son is as incidental to her as he is to her public persona - and that any love she may have held for him has been eclipsed by her paranoid, hateful politics - and perhaps always was. With ample cause.

Love is not like an itch; it is not a passing sensation. It gives much - and demands much - and has many counterfeits.

I repeat, precisely because you refuse to acknowledge this and operate on the implicit presupposition that this is not true: Casey Sheehan was an adult. He had his own beliefs, and they were very different from his mother's, and he made his own decisions. They were decisions to serve, and to protect, and to risk much in doing so. He put his life on the line - not arbitrarily, as someone caught in an earthquake or traffic accident - but deliberately. He put his life on the line for something.

It is one thing to disagree with that something. Love may accomodate that. It is quite another to publicly spit on all he chose to stand and sacrifice for. Love demands respect. Cindy Sheehan has none for her son. This is something the rest of Casey Sheehan's family - who disagree strongly with Cindy over her conduct - understand.

It is yet another thing, of course, to publicly support and praise the very evil people your son volunteered to fight. The very people who worked to kill him, and ultimately succeeded.

Cindy Sheehan is openly praising the very people who worked to kill her son. She has called foreign al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq 'freedom fighters.'

Greater love hath no mother, than to praise and support the people who opposed everything her son stood for and tried, successfully, to kill him.

A bit big for a catchy button there, but what can ya do?

If this is what you call "normal", Tom, let me just say that I'm glad you're not family.

No, Tom, you are calling Casey Sheehan a "child" in a deliberate attempt to infantilize him. To attempt to portray him as an innocent naive victim instead of the adult making admirable choices that he was.

Its dishonest, intentional and I will continue to call you out on it.

Some Fella, the long repeated theme that the Jews control the United States, and its foreign policy, is an anti-semitic theme. Together with Cindy Sheehan's association with pro-terrorists like Lynne Stewart, it tells us a lot about her and her adherents.

Tom, I find it really offensive that people like Cindy Sheehan are calling Barbara Bush's child such terrible names. Its hurtful. No mother should have to see a child willfully abused in such a manner.

Mark Bueher:
Who do you think tagged him with the name "Dubya"?

R,

That's a pretty weak justification for calling Sheehan anti-semitic. I bet when you see the race card played so lazily that you are quick to cry foul. And rightly so.

Allow me to dissect. Israel and Jews are two different, albeit related, things. Did she say Jews controlled this country? No. She said we went to war for Israel's security. She's also said we went to war for oil, so it's not like she's saying the only reason we went to war was to help Israel.

Does that automatically make someone anti-semitic, to suggest that we went to war to enhance Israel's (our ally's) security? For that to be anti-semitic would require that such a thing is inconceivable, and that this has something to do with their Jewishness. She did not say something anti-semitic, she said something which people assme to mean she harbors anti-semitic views.

Let me boil it down. Did Sheehan say anything anti-semitic? No. Did she say something that an anti-semite might say? Yes. But that is a very important distinction. An anti-semite might say many thing that you or I would agree with, while we might disagree with their conclusions, or other points.

On this matter, I agree with Sheehan. I think Israel's security did play a role in our going to war. Neocons are avid supporters of Israel for a variety of reasons. They see it as a model state for the middle east, a democracy that flowers in the desert. To them, protecting one democracy while fostering another, that's just good sense. I don't think it was a primary cause for the war, but it was one more motive on their shopping list. Oil is definitely on that list, too.

This anti-semitism garbage is just a willfull attempts to find something else to hate about Sheehan. I call upon the pro-war crowd to abandon this lazy and disreputable slur. If you have a problem with her, fine, but at least base it on something real.

And another thing...

Everyone should try to stop playing armchair psychologist here. I can imagine all kinds of things motivating Ms. Sheehan. I can imagine motives that are noble, as well as ones that are cynical and exploitive. Perhaps she is driven by some out of each column. None of you know her as a person, so it's just ridiculous to speculate. That goes for both sides of the fence.

I'm more concerned about the behavior of the president. He's the one who makes the important decisions. Watching his reaction to this matter, I am dismayed.

Another thing to consider is that your opinions of Bush and Sheehan don't have to have anything to do with each other. You can say that she's exploiting her son's memory AND that Bush is fumbling hard. They are not mutually exclusive.

"As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could 'dominate' the Middle East . . ., let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric," said Howard Dean

"It is yet another thing, of course, to publicly support and praise the very evil people your son volunteered to fight. The very people who worked to kill him, and ultimately succeeded.
Cindy Sheehan is openly praising the very people who worked to kill her son. She has called foreign al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq 'freedom fighters.'
Greater love hath no mother, than to praise and support the people who opposed everything her son stood for and tried, successfully, to kill him."

Actually, Casey Sheehan was killed in Sadr City, almost certainly by supporters of Moqtada Sadr, rather than by foreign jihadis. Calling foreign fighters "freedom fighters" is indefensible, but a nationalist pan-Arabic response to US invasion and occupation was completely predictable and was, indeed, predicted by many war opponents. Somehow, Bush's professional war planners were not smart enough to expect it, preferring optimistic scenarios of oil-financed war and welcoming parades.
Whatever the merits and shortcomings of Cindy Sheehan as a poster child, the pro-war publicists had better prepare themselves for more family members who refuse to suffer their grief quietly, no matter what Bush and Rove would prefer. Similarly, returning vets are already showing the disaster behind Bush's rosy illusion. Check out Iraq Veterans Against The War
I must admit to curiousity about what angle the attack dogs of the right will use against IVAW. Maybe WOC can source the meme?

PD Shaw,

You didn't make an argument, and neither did your quote. It wouldn't matter who you quoted if they're not making an argument. And Howard Dean is a strange choice; surely you can find someone more authoritative on matters Judaic.

And the quote isn't even germane.

My argument is this: Sheehan's "Israel" statement ranks a two-and-a-half on PD Shaw's patented idiotarian scale, which is to say its half-way between naive and hateful. You seem to believe it falls well within the naive camp, though not without some basis.

The case for hate is largely associational. Go read David Duke's defense of Sheehan then read the quote again. Howard Dean was castigating the usual suspects of Israeli cabal, not too far removed from Sheehan's statements. Some of the peace movements supporting Sheehan's campaign have made anti-semetic statements in the past to support their hostility to Israel.

The case is not purely associatonal though. Ms. Sheehan doubts that OBL was the cause of 9/11. Who hold such views? And Ms. Sheehan denied making her statement regarding Israel -- a falsehoodl that further evidences guilt.

I'm not sure it matters what kind of idiot she is. Its a sad development for the peace movement. I passed by peace advocates every Wednesday for about 18 months, rain, heat or ice. That takes a lot of personal fortitude when you aren't sure if anybody is listening or cares. I can understand the attraction to Sheehan, but she will ultimately hurt the movement and the Democratic party.

Shaw,

I have to admit that Sheehan's skepticism of OBL causing 9/11 has the ring of conspiracy nut. I certainly don't agree with that. But given her continual statements about neocons, I think they would be a safe bet for her blame. I can understand how you would associate that statement with some of the zany Jewish conspiracies among the Arab community. However, I think neocons would be consistent with her other statements.

I don't like your argument by association. Like I said before, just because you have an idea in common with an anti-semite does not mean you are an anti-semite.

Also like I said, I personally believe that Israeli security was one motivation for our invasion of Iraq. Does this make me an anti-semite? Granted, you don't know me, so for all you know, sure. Here's what I think. I do believe that they form a community, with its own interests and capabilities.

On one hand, I distinguish between Israel and the Jewish community. Nevertheless, I think that the American Jewish community has influence within the United States. And they are sympathetic to Israel, and often exert their influence in its favor. And finally, as an ally, Israel's security represents a rational strategic interest for us.

Now, I'm well aware that many anti-semites have said such things (except the last). However, there are some key differences. First, I don't believe that Jews are somehow innately different from anyone else. Second, I don't think they are "all-powerful". And third, I don't think that American Jews generally put Israeli interests above American interests. Oh, and finally, I actually have Jewish friends (I don't think this is some kind of absolution, but how many anti-semites befriend Jews?)

Is anything I'm saying REALLY all that controversial? Is it unreasonable?

Given my views, I have to see something a bit more convincing than guilt-by-association to convince me that Sheehan is anti-semitic. I suggest that it is merely convenient for you to think of her in that way. Mentioning the early protesters is particularly tenuous. Some anti-semites didn't like the war a couple years ago...so that taints her, too?

Finally, the question of the email and lie. I've been looking into this, and I can't find anything that's not heavily partisan, so I really don't know. But let's say she is lying and did write it...being a liar is not the same thing as an anti-semite. Your guilt-by-association paint brush is VERY wide.

I think this just demonstrates the desire to lump in whatever negative traits you can. You are very ready to believe whatever criticisms you hear about Sheehan, to the extent that you don't always distinguish between them. They all satisfy the same desire.