August 28, 2006

Comments (8)

  • Yup, that's just mean!!

  • How incredibly strange! It's funny that there is such a reaction to taking candy from a toddler when those same people think nothing of taking life from a baby. But, emotional manipulation of children (or anyone) for a photo is scary.

  • I was going to say something, but TeacherPerson has already said it. :) I like your new look, by the way... Praying for your evangelistic outreaches this school year...

  • Yeah, that is mean...and it was all because she hates Bush.  Pretty silly really. 

  • Go to far?  I have to say no.  I looked up the pictures, and did not find anything disturbing or abusive.  As the mother of little ones, I know it doesn't take much to produce wails and tears that look frightful.  Is she misguided -- probably, but she did not hurt those children. 

  • no, Jill didn't (imho), but I would say that the angry internet mob did. Seriously, kids cry, at the drop of a hat, what's so abnormal about taking away their lollipop for 2 minutes? And if she did this because she thinks it's crazy that Christians (supporting Bush) are using religion to justify a discretionary war, followed by an ill-planned reconstruction effort -- regardless of whether her perception is accurate, I think she's justified in taking some (rather benign) pictures to express (or evoke a response based on) her opinion.

  • Wow. I don't know who Jill as or what she did. Should I?

  • O. I see. You gave us a link. Perhaps it's another example of "The medium is the message." Jill's methods tell us more about her than the words she used to explain what she was trying to convey.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment

tim223

(I use 'tags' and 'categories' almost interchangeably... see below)

Recent Comments