Robert, the religion of those anti-abortion protestors was the entire REASON for their viewpoint. In that context, a cross is perfectly appropriate to make their point.
As for the rest:
They're not evidence of anything--there's no dispute that abortions happen, nothing needs to be proved; all those pictures prove is the coarse sensibilities and imbecility of the anti-choice protesters, that they think that such things are actually useful arguments.
The Abu Ghraib pictures presented to the general public weren't "evidence" either by that criteria. Far from being "covered up," the crimes had been discovered, and the perpetrators charged, weeks before the huge political flap generated by the publication of the pictures. The photos and other evidence were already part of the investigation, and were also presented to Congressmen and others in closed sessions.
The only reason for pasting them in front of the American people over and over and over again was to use them as a political weapon. Period. End of story.
Salon.com, wrapping itself in nobility and high motives, dumped a new batch of the same photos recently. This time around it fell almost completely flat. They weren't kidding anyone out there as to their real motivations.
Their bitterness is palpable that only the perpetrators were punished, and not the higher-ups they were lusting for.
Current Events » in reply to re: Just wondering...
Parallels
The whole thread (52 posts)
- Free speech on the campus
- Here's my question to you.
- Professor suspended
- re: Free speech on the campus
- I could describe my night on the floor of the republican convention
- would any number of counterexamples matter?
- Only "Politically Correct" speech is free.
- Tom, a little less than 2 decades ago...
- Another example
- re: Free speech on the campus
- It takes all kinds