A few words for my wingnut pals...

...and you are my pals, at least some of you, at least if you want to be.

I'm not at all upset by the presence of dissenting voices in the comments here at Upper Left, from either side of the spectrum. In fact, I prefer it that way. I don't, however, want the comments here to become the kind of snakepit that is too typical of too many sites of both left and right slants. As I've said before, principle among the reasons I do this is for fun. I enjoy sharing the stuff I find, and my take on it. I enjoy hearing reactions, and having the occasional tussle.

I don't enjoy seeing the service of American heroes dismissed or disrespected, and I won't offer a platform here for that kind of nonsense. As a general (though not exclusive) rule, in my mind the ranks of American heroes includes anyone who has earned the Combat Infantry Badge or any decoration for valorous service. They are, by defintion, not cowards or traitors, and comments that argue otherwise will be deleted summarily. Call it censorship if you wish (you're wrong). I call it editing.

Similarly, here's the beginning and end of the Cindy Sheehan story as far as I'm concerned. She has suffered one of the most tragic fates that faces any parent, the death of a child during his parent's natural life. It's a violation of the natural order, regardless of the circumstances. In Sheehan's case, the circumstances are special. Her government sent her son to die in an enterprise she doesn't understand.

Some have argued that in her quest for understanding, Sheehan has been inconsistent. The bill for Cindy Sheehan's right to seek some measure of understanding, some small grain of personal peace from the man who set the policy and gave the order that led to her son's death is paid in full by virtue of that death.

It's been charged, in a pointedly offensive manner, in comments no longer to be found here that Sheehan has an unhealthy interest in publicity. Of course, the publicity is only made possible by the intransigence of the President. If only he would have, at the moment her presence became known to him, invited her in for a sit down with a nice glass of sweet tea. If only he might have said "We may never agree, but it's important to me that you know that I truly believe in our cause. I made mistakes along the way, but bringing freedom to an oppressed people is a worthy cause, a cause that gives meaning and honor to your son's sacrifice."

Really, that's all it might have taken. Some genuine human interest. A touch of humility. A moment or two of time. Story over.

Too great a price, apparently, for our President.

Meanwhile, the wingnut wind machine is blowing smoke fast and furious, trying to make this about Cindy Sheehan's motives, about Cindy Sheehan's character. There are many forums in which you find members of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders tossing around their hateful abuse of a woman whose circumstance should at the very least evoke empathy, even where there is disagreement.

This isn't one of those forums. That doesn't mean there isn't fair ground to argue about Sheehan's view of the war, Sheehan's tactical approach to expressing that view, whatever. There isn't, however, any room here for questions about her character, or her right to seek peace, whether personal or universal, in any way she sees fit. Comments that cross the line will simply disappear as I find them. I think the line I draw is pretty bright. I think it's perfectly fair.

I would feel the same way, and invoke the same standard, in the case of a Gold Star mother who was to emerge as a leading voice in favor of the way George Bush has conducted his war. I'm biased. It's no secret. But this is one of those "...I'll defend to the death your right to say it" deals that always makes us liberals look squishy to some folks. After all, "fair" is, in it's essence, a liberal notion.

And, illiberal though this sentiment may be, if you don't agree, well, I just don't care what you think about that.