Occupy us early, or not at all, please.
"Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans," said Cindy Sheehan today.
Never mind that up until this morning, her own faction's position was that we didn't "occupy" New Oleans enough.
Or how about this, from the same essay:
"If I had a store with an inventory of insured belongings, and a tragedy happened, I would fling my doors open and tell everyone to take what they need: it is only stuff."
Note that it's not her generosity or sacrifice that she's proclaiming: It's the looting of the insurance company. Her own wealth is never at risk in this heartwarming scenario.
Not to mention the total disconnect with reality: No insurance company would ever pay such a claim. "Okay, Ma'am, how did you say you lost your inventory? You didn't lose it, you say? You gave it away? For free? Oh, not for free? You want us to pay for it? Well, Ma'am, I'm sorry to tell you that our policy doesn't cover insurance fraud."
And anyway, insurance fraud? How does that work? It's okay to back out of solemn contracts with some people, but not with others?
This is the picture of a person who demands to be treated like a saint, but is totally unwilling to make any sacrifices of her own.
She ranted at us for days on end about her sacrifice of her son: An adult whom she did not own and to which she had no rights or claims. Now she brings us a fantasy of wholehearted generosity based once again on giving away things she has no right to give away.
It seems to me that emotions are excellent for telling us that something needs to be done. But it also seems to me that only reason can tell us what needs to be done, and why.
Sadly, Cindy Sheehan seems to have a surplus of emotion, and a deficit of reason.