After reading the comments I came to the conclusion that Ms. O'Donut is the smartest and sanest of the bunch. That is the most pathetic accumulation of defectives I have ever encountered.

We must also decry the ongoing abuse of that shrieking harpy Pamela Oshry Geller, over at "Atlas Shrugs." She's always using her kids as props in her incoherent hatefests. It disgusts me.

I so hate the way Rosie writes that I start quivering with rage every time I stumble across one of her "poems."

I dunno, Doc. Sometimes she can be pretty amusing. And my brother did that, so don't blame me. ;-)

"A picture says a thousands posts"

Whats it say, she wants her daughter to be a terrorist? I think Rosie lost her marbles.

I say we just ignore the barnyard animal. The less we talk about her, the better life is. That is one woman that even some libs have to admit is crazy.

Kram
www.FuzzySnake.com

"A picture says a thousand posts."

Which of the double entendre hits you first, Rosie's effort to mock literacy or the bravado of Rosie actually fighting for anything beyond the point she feels you are not her friend anymore?

If there was a fitting picture worth a thousand explanations of maroon, that one comes second after a photo, any photo, of Rosie.

The child soldier is always a disturbing image, and the fact that people are disturbed is indeed, likely the very point. The message that I take away, at bottom, is that war is destroying our young and, implicitly, our future. You may disagree or think it trite, but that does not make it unclear.

So what's the big deal again? You guys don't get it so she must be nuts, is that what I am reading here?

Shocku, your moral relativity drivel falls on deaf ears here.

Teaching your children to hack off the heads of those who don't grow their beards long enough is not the same as teaching your children to stay the hand of those who attempt to hack off those heads. Teaching your children to beat on women who don't wear the proper style of clothing is not the same as teaching your children to intervene to stop the beating.

Children being included in efforts to show the moral philosophy of a family or society is not altogether repugnant and neither is a child soldier, even a child fighting, in and of itself. What determines it's repugnance is what the purpose is, what philosophy informs it and how great the need for action is.

In this instance I find it a good teaching moment. What is the purpose of Rosie offering this picture of her daughter, if she, in fact, does mean to offer a point at all? The disgust that many on our side display is threefold, I think. First, it is invested with the disgust for Rosie's own moral relativity, philsophy, and hypocrisy, which leads to the second disgust for Rosie's impersonal use of her daughter to argue points she is incapable of arguing herself.

But, third, last and more important, this disgust is held in the atmosphere of knowing Rosie really has no serious point to offer in her substitute for a thousand posts. She tried to paint with Picasso symbolism but left it absent of symbol like that of hosting a party and adding a note to the invitation, "Bring your own anything." You have brought "destroying our young people" and "destroying our future", both of which are "implicit" for you and which is itself, without much of a point either, not to mention pretty much wrong. The future will exist no matter how many times Rosie's publishes picture of her daughter wearing a bandoleer and I'll go on to say that if children grow up wearing the "metaphorical" bandoleer for the correct reasons, the future will become much brighter, not more dark.

"Shocku, your moral relativity drivel falls on deaf ears here."

I am not entirely sure at what point I made any moral point whatsoever. Perhaps you could point that out for me.

"She tried to paint with Picasso symbolism but left it absent of symbol like that of hosting a party and adding a note to the invitation, 'Bring your own anything.'"

I would hardly call this a Picasso symbolism. In fact, as far a symbolism goes, it's pretty kindergarten, which is why I am shocked at the confusion here at what she could POSSIBLY be trying to get at.

"not to mention pretty much wrong. The future will exist no matter how many times Rosie's publishes picture of her daughter wearing a bandoleer and I'll go on to say that if children grow up wearing the "metaphorical" bandoleer for the correct reasons, the future will become much brighter, not more dark."

Fine you disagree with the point. Personally, I think the message here is trite and utterly devoid of subtlety. That having been said, I still GET the point. I am astounded not that people here disagree with what she is saying with this picture, but that they don't understand it. It is really not that complicated.