Comments on: Child Abuse Case Used to Question the Patriot Act

By: Ares Vista

Ares Vista — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:09:17 +0000

So, the airlines allow 9/11 to happen because they didn’t follow procedure, and now they are arresting people for disciplining their children and kissing? WTF? The entire nation should be leveled, and we should all be forgotten. Our country has lost its identity. We have become greedy, hateful, and selfish. God save us all.

By: HalifaxCB

HalifaxCB — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:40:42 +0000

What is it about progressives that makes them hate children so? It sems to be such a common theme on the liberal agenda, whether it’s avoiding pregnancy at all costs, aborting if that fails (or simply fails to generate a cookie cutter concept of perfection), institutionalizing their upbringing if they happen to get born via birth-to-adulthood daycare, and then if all else fails, mortgaging their future to the hilt to pay for adult refusal to be self-reliant? I guess in the long run it indicates that progressivism is a self-limiting enterprise, but in the meantime it certainly makes for an emptier world.

By: Mike T

Mike T — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:12:08 +0000

Clue: if that were a dad, single or otherwise, you would have had a very different handling.

Only if he were white and non-Muslim. If a Middle Eastern man had done this, the NYT would have been all over his case defending him. Pretty ironic too since beating children (yes, beating in a sense that conservatives would call beating) is considered acceptable as a form of punishment in most Middle Eastern states.

By: Self-hating Boomer

Self-hating Boomer — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:06:05 +0000

This raises the question: what motivated the Times reporters to leave these facts out of their story?

Clue: if that were a dad, single or otherwise, you would have had a very different handling.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:32:46 +0000

Annie respected my anonymity in the manner in which I requested.

By: Annie Jacobsen

Annie Jacobsen — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:14:04 +0000

My source requested to be identified that way, which, yes, is how he blogs.
–Annie Jacobsen

By: submandave

submandave — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:30:26 +0000

“I wouldn’t want to be your friend or source”

I had the same initial thought, Granny, but when I looked at it twice Annie didn;t give out any more information on “Ken” than he gives himself where he blogs (Popehat.com).

By: Ohio Granny

Ohio Granny — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:59:21 +0000

(I found the complaint thanks to Ken, a former federal prosecutor who blogs anonymously as Ken at Popehat.com.)

Geez Annie, I wouldn’t want to be your friend or source.

As to the “professional journalists” cherry picking facts, sigh, what else is new? For my entire adult life I found it absurd when newspapers would pick a fact and then scream it. 12% of all Americans like grape over cherry jelly. A full Twelve Per Cent. TWELVE PER CENT. TWELVE PER CENT!!!!!!! (and if that does’t pound it in, they start using bigger and bold fonts)
While ignoring the 88 per cent.
Sadly, it works.

By: Benson

Benson — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:06:05 +0000

The LAT story strikes me as unclear and imprecise. Freeman lost her children, but why? The newspaper implies it was because she was convicted of an infraction under the Patriot Act. Is that all there is to it, or would there have to be a good deal more evidence that she is an unfit, abusive parent?

This LAT article qualifies as innuendo motivated by ideology, IMHO. My thanks to Mrs. J for exposing it — she’s one of the Good Journalists. She’s helping.