(Page 4 of 12)
I just read Dave Shiflett’s column. I couldn’t agree with him more.
I am a “Columbine parent.” My son was a freshman at the time. Even though he was sitting within 3 feet of the duffel bag that contained a bomb that consisted of two 20 lb. propane tanks with a 5 gallon gasoline accelerant when it was supposed to go off, and even though he was shot at as he ran from Eric and Dylan, he was not physically hurt. He has been in therapy since 4/20/99 — one of the reasons is the press.
Everything, it seems, is related to Columbine. The press will not leave it alone. Tomorrow is the third anniversary. Reporters are walking the streets of my neighborhood, knocking on doors, wanting to do interviews about how life has changed because of Columbine.
Even three years later hardly a night goes by on television where someone, either in a sitcom, drama or news program, makes some remark about Columbine.p>The story is never allowed to die. Thirteen people were murdered that day but the real victims are the survivors. They have to go forward, get on with their lives. But they can’t, not when every time you turn around someone else, someone who has no idea what went on (the press reports were notoriously inaccurate) but is an expert on the subject just shoots off their mouth because everybody knows about “Columbine.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online