The following caught my attention.
USA Today's storyline:
Police apologize, drop charge against Sheehan
This I had to read. We've all noted the differential treatment accorded to Cindy compared with Beverly Young. Cindy was handcuffed, arrested, and detained for wearing a tee-shirt that said "2245 Dead. How many more?", whereas Beverly Young was removed, but neither cuffed, nor arrested for wearing a shirt that said "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom". But after spending the better part of a half hour deconstructing the story, I ended up thinking it was a good object lesson in political maneuvering -- with the help of the obliging media of course. Let's have a look.
First, we have Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young, two women who might be said to have opposing viewpoints. Now, with a deft substitution, we are given two women with
opposing tee-shirts as a substitution.
Sheehan's T-shirt made reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" ...Young's shirt had just the opposite message: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."
Now hold on just a moment. These are not opposite messages. Who supports the troops more than Cindy? We agree that Cindy may not agree that the troops are defending our freedom in Iraq, though I'm sure she agrees that they can and do defend our freedom in the appropriate circumstances. At best the statement is a half-truth. But that was enough for the Republicans to grab. Bill Young took advantage of the situation to make a grandstand play:
"Because she had on a shirt that someone didn't like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery," Young said on the House floor Wednesday, holding up the gray shirt.
My head reels. Who is the "someone" referred to here? Mind the insinuation -- this is an outrage at the fact that something like this would happen, not just that this happened. He isn't talking just about the Sergeant-at-Arms in the Capitol; it is insinuated now that it is we liberals who are responsible for the mistreatment of his spouse -- and not just her, but all others like her! Young makes sure to frame the issue as an objection over the "support our troops" message. But I see no evidence of anyone objecting to the concept of supporting our troops. If a disagreement had been articulated, I'm sure it would have had to do with misguided leadership, and not the troops.
Of course we hear no objection from Young over the mistreatment of Cindy Sheehan, who was obviously the more mistreated of the two. Instrumentally omitting mention of Cindy carries enough insinuation to do its job.
I am tickled by the characterization of both as "protesters," which is actually refreshingly revealing. Because suddenly it puts the two strong viewpoints as being on equal footing, rather than the liberal view being cast as subversive, and the other one not. Of course, Beverly did not appreciate the distinction.
"They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, 'Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"
Actually, Beverly, you were protesting the beliefs held by the majority of Americans, if not the ruling party: What would be the point of wearing such a message if it were not in opposition to anyone at all?