I got a comment on my post about Terri Schiavo, and I think it should be repeated:
She wasn’t murdered. She wasn’t even denied food or drink. A decision was made to stop forcing it on her against her will. She chose not to take it.
Interesting, considering that not even Michael Schiavo claimed that Terri ever said that she didn’t want to be fed through a tube. Michael Schiavo claimed that she didn’t want to live hooked up to machines – and a feeding tube is not a machine.
This means that the only evidence of Terri’s wishes we had to go on was the fact that Terri clung to life for thirteen days after her fluids were cut off. Yes, that certainly indicates a desire to die, doesn’t it?
Furthermore, everyone who supported killing Terri claimed that she was braindead. If she truly was braindead (which she wasn’t, since she was alive without machines, but let’s just say that she was), then obviously she wasn’t in the position to “chose” anything. You people can’t have it both ways; by your argument, either she wasn’t braindead and she wanted to die, or she was braindead and it didn’t matter to her because she was braindead. It cannot be both!
I felt obligated to repeat this comment from below because it reminds us of the insane arguments that those who supported the killing of Terri had resorted to in order to justify state-enforced murder. There is absolutely no logic whatsoever in the hearts, minds, or mouths of those who advocated the senseless killing of this innocent disabled woman.
Here’s a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark’s controversial comments about McCain’s military service. “As he’s said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.”
We recently watched “Letters from Travis,” an Internet movie about a young Marine killed in Iraq produced to boost the political candidacy of his father, Tom Manion. We were left with this question: Why should voters support Manion?
The younger Manion died last year. His father, a Marine veteran, says the death of his son is the reason he is challenging first-term Democratic incumbent Congressman Patrick Murphy, himself an Iraq war veteran. In fact, Murphy’s candidacy was largely driven by the war as well.
The first of four installments of “Letters from Travis” includes pictures of Tom and Travis Manion and clips of American servicemen in Iraq, together with appropriate music and narration. It’s a nice piece from a technical standpoint.
But it also seems exploitative, denials of those who support the film notwithstanding. What else can you call this attempt to convince voters that a personal family tragedy is somehow relevant to a run for political office? Is Manion suggesting that his son’s service to his country somehow qualifies him to serve in Congress?
They titled their piece, Sketchy Script. … and naturally the Intelligencer’s editorial has drawn criticism from readers.
Your editorial board should be ashamed of itself for suggesting that “Letters from Travis” is exploitative and challenging Tom Manion’s honor and sincerity. Apparently, The Intelligencer believes that the death of Tom Manion’s son in Iraq is a less worthy motivation than Patrick Murphy’s returning from Iraq alive.
The editor says, “You can argue whether that’s the intent of the Democrats,” referring to the death toll tally of soldiers killed in Iraq posted on the Democratic Committee headquarters office just above the Patrick Murphy for Congress poster. We all, including the editor, know the intent of the death toll tally board. The tally board is in no way meant to honor the dead but uses their sacrifices and deaths as a political device against the war they enlisted to serve in.
The editor says Tom Manion’s video is highly exploitive of his son. Nothing could be further from the truth, and my guess is the editor knows this as well. The definition of exploit in this case is to use selfishly for one’s own ends. Tom Manion is truly honoring his son and those other soldiers who served in a war they volunteered to participate in. The Democrats tally board just above the Patrick Murphy poster is used as a ploy to selfishly achieve their ends: their position against the war these servicemen died supporting.
Rep. Murphy’s last campaign and his views on the war effort have left a bad taste in my mouth, a taste that is strangely reminiscent of my experience in the service during the Vietnam War. It was Murphy who exploited the war effort for political gain. In doing so, he reinforced the view among terrorist organizations that the United States does not have the resolve to win any war against the terrorists.
Gloucester, a fishing town that’s home to 30,000 overwhelmingly white, working-class folks, is, at least this year, not that perfect world. The result has been a re-examination of the school’s sex-education policies. One startling comment came from a Gloucester High student, not one of the expectant teens, to a Boston TV station. “I mean it’s their decisions,” she said, “whatever they want to do.”
Really? Time magazine reported that none of the mothers-to-be is older than 16, hardly old enough to grasp the ramifications of their choice.
Presumably, while they are not mature enough to choose motherhood, they are old enough to choose abortion. Isn’t that right, P-G?
Also, you can tell the the P-G would really love to blame all of this on abstinence education, but, alas, they cannot. This happened in Massachusetts, in a place where abstinence education has been rejected in favor of “comprehensive” sex ed:
Last spring, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rejected $700,000 in free money for abstinence teaching from the federal government. Meanwhile, Patrick approved a budget increase of $800,000 for comprehensive sex ed funding, bringing the total to $3.8 million annually.
The dreadlocked Christian activist from Philadelphia and his team parked a black school bus around the back. The hand-painted gold letters on the side read “Jesus for President.”
The bus runs on vegetable oil and, yes, it’s a political statement.
“It’ll be a long time before we fight a war over used veggie oil,” says Claiborne with a sly smile.
So a bunch of neo-hippies met, probably smoked dope, and talked about how Obama is so Christ-like. Why is that national news? Because, the media can use a story like that to show how “evangelicals” – traditionally the strongest Republican voting bloc – are supposedly going for Obama. That is the one and only reason why CNN is talking about these hippies who claim to be Christians.
It’s nothing but deception on CNN’s part. Hippies have often claimed to be Christian, and they have also always been far-left degenerates. They were certainly never conservatives, and they never voted Republican.
Also, consider if there were actual evangelical Christians advocating “Jesus for President” based upon the real Scriptures instead of attempting to push a far-left agenda. The media, if it would have recognized them at all, would have condemned them as fascists who want to force their religion on the country. But, you can avoid being called a theocrat even if you are directly advocating a theocracy, just as long as you support the right causes and the right candidate.
Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.
“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.
With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who claims to be very concerned about how our troops are treated, and who has spent years attacking conservative Republicans as anti-troop via his partisan VoteVets organization, recently said this about your military service:
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”
I suggest that you reply to Clark with these words:
“Is that so? Well, how many times have you been shot down while flying a fighter plane in a war zone, a**hole?”
If you were to say that, I think we would see your approval rating go up by 10 points overnight.