Explosive Objections
Another article today from the New York Times, with its typical nauseating display of "impartial" coverage, i.e. treating lies and the truth as the same thing, as long as the lies are (as usual) emanating from the right:
"Closed Clinic Leaves Abortion Protesters at a Loss
This city of 358,000 people, once the focal point of protests because of four abortion clinics — most significantly Dr. Tiller’s, which provided rare late-term abortions — last week had no abortion facility open for business, no target in chief, no immediate reason for this network of anti-abortion forces to be based here."
Forgive me if I don't feel much pity for them. At the risk of being accused of another violation of Godwin's law, I can imagine a newspaper article in 1944 Germany: "The extermination of all Jews in Central Europe leaves no immediate target for the network of antisemitic forces..."
The Times continues:
"In Kansas, battles have been waged endlessly over matters of morality — alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, the teaching of evolution, abortion."
Leaving aside the other issues, since when is evolution an issue of morality? It is an issue of the truth versus people who intend their followers to do and believe what they are told, no matter how irrational. Once someone is willing to swallow the nonsense that the earth is 6000 years old, it's easy pickings to get them to deny global warming, believe the lunatic cant of the free market fanatics, and accept torture in Jesus' name, or deify the worst President in history.
But all of this, as bad a job of honest reporting as it is, pales compared to the real reason for my writing this post. Here it is:
"The clinic drew sometimes violent objections all along (including a firebombing in 1986) but the “Summer of Mercy” turned what had previously been a mostly small-scale skirmish into a national battle."
Objections? So a terrorist bombing, when committed by a conservative is now an "objection?" We take a few pathetic saps that were lured by our own government into agreeing to some half-baked, ludicrous attack which they had no ability to carry out, and make them into some sort of gigantic threat to our lives, but an actual terrorist bombing becomes an "objection?"
If anyone thinks the mainstream media has learned one damned thing from the consequences of their collaboration with the right wing, think again. This is pathetic and disgusting at the same time.
"Closed Clinic Leaves Abortion Protesters at a Loss
This city of 358,000 people, once the focal point of protests because of four abortion clinics — most significantly Dr. Tiller’s, which provided rare late-term abortions — last week had no abortion facility open for business, no target in chief, no immediate reason for this network of anti-abortion forces to be based here."
Forgive me if I don't feel much pity for them. At the risk of being accused of another violation of Godwin's law, I can imagine a newspaper article in 1944 Germany: "The extermination of all Jews in Central Europe leaves no immediate target for the network of antisemitic forces..."
The Times continues:
"In Kansas, battles have been waged endlessly over matters of morality — alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, the teaching of evolution, abortion."
Leaving aside the other issues, since when is evolution an issue of morality? It is an issue of the truth versus people who intend their followers to do and believe what they are told, no matter how irrational. Once someone is willing to swallow the nonsense that the earth is 6000 years old, it's easy pickings to get them to deny global warming, believe the lunatic cant of the free market fanatics, and accept torture in Jesus' name, or deify the worst President in history.
But all of this, as bad a job of honest reporting as it is, pales compared to the real reason for my writing this post. Here it is:
"The clinic drew sometimes violent objections all along (including a firebombing in 1986) but the “Summer of Mercy” turned what had previously been a mostly small-scale skirmish into a national battle."
Objections? So a terrorist bombing, when committed by a conservative is now an "objection?" We take a few pathetic saps that were lured by our own government into agreeing to some half-baked, ludicrous attack which they had no ability to carry out, and make them into some sort of gigantic threat to our lives, but an actual terrorist bombing becomes an "objection?"
If anyone thinks the mainstream media has learned one damned thing from the consequences of their collaboration with the right wing, think again. This is pathetic and disgusting at the same time.
Comments
This is important stuff.