Somewhere between 7p on June 14 and 7p on June 15, vandals sprayed the following graffiti on the home of Dubuque, IA, pro-lifer Allen Troupe:
They were most likely incited by this sign in a window of Troupe's home...
Troupe filed a police report and anticipated fair and balanced media attention in line with what we know would be provided were pro-life graffiti to appear on the home of an abortion proponent - i.e., lots.
But not only did the local rag, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, fail to post a story, it failed to even post the police report in its daily listing. Editorial staff either considered the incident too slight, or it was expressing bias by omission.
So Troupe emailed DTH editor Brian Cooper, and here was Cooper's response:
"Wouldn't you think a bona fide pro-choice vandal would know how to spell abortion?"
The overriding conclusion to draw from Cooper's rhetorical question is that "bona fide" pro-aborts can't be stupid.
There are thus 3 conspiracy theories Cooper was implying:
1. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert but stupid pro-lifer.
2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert pro-lifer attempting to make pro-aborts look stupid.
2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was not pro-life or pro-abortion at all but just a simple street vandal who wanted people to think s/he was pro-abortion.
In fact, I could only surmise Conspiracy Theories #1 and 2 until Cooper (pictured right) told me #3 by phone this morning.
"I'm not surprised you can't think of any other conclusion," he said, since I had identified myself as a pro-life blogger. "Not everyone is fervently pro-choice or pro-life. This could have been someone who doesn't have any opinion on it and wanted to vandalize but seem that someone else was doing it."
Well that makes total sense. A vandal into graffiti purely for the joy of it, uninvolved in the abortion battle either way, would know enough to connect a sign opposing Planned Parenthood with "aboration" and "baby killers" and decide to spray paint about it to somehow implicate pro-aborts because... Well, again, I can only come up with the fact the graffiti vandal was either #1 or #2.
The Telegraph Herald finally posted a story about the vandalism on June 23, but catch the headline:
Troupe "believes" the graffiti on his home was tied to his abortion opposition, but that may not be true? The story's 1st sentence reiterated the point:
Police are investigating a vandalism case involving a man who believes his house was targeted due to his opposition to Planned Parenthood and abortion.
So Troupe could have been in actuality drawing wild conclusions or hallucinating?
These journalists are either utterly biased or totally void of common sense and simple intelligence.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 28, 1010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
They were most likely incited by this sign in a window of Troupe's home...
Troupe filed a police report and anticipated fair and balanced media attention in line with what we know would be provided were pro-life graffiti to appear on the home of an abortion proponent - i.e., lots.
But not only did the local rag, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, fail to post a story, it failed to even post the police report in its daily listing. Editorial staff either considered the incident too slight, or it was expressing bias by omission.
So Troupe emailed DTH editor Brian Cooper, and here was Cooper's response:
"Wouldn't you think a bona fide pro-choice vandal would know how to spell abortion?"
The overriding conclusion to draw from Cooper's rhetorical question is that "bona fide" pro-aborts can't be stupid.
There are thus 3 conspiracy theories Cooper was implying:
1. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert but stupid pro-lifer.
2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert pro-lifer attempting to make pro-aborts look stupid.
2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was not pro-life or pro-abortion at all but just a simple street vandal who wanted people to think s/he was pro-abortion.
In fact, I could only surmise Conspiracy Theories #1 and 2 until Cooper (pictured right) told me #3 by phone this morning.
"I'm not surprised you can't think of any other conclusion," he said, since I had identified myself as a pro-life blogger. "Not everyone is fervently pro-choice or pro-life. This could have been someone who doesn't have any opinion on it and wanted to vandalize but seem that someone else was doing it."
Well that makes total sense. A vandal into graffiti purely for the joy of it, uninvolved in the abortion battle either way, would know enough to connect a sign opposing Planned Parenthood with "aboration" and "baby killers" and decide to spray paint about it to somehow implicate pro-aborts because... Well, again, I can only come up with the fact the graffiti vandal was either #1 or #2.
The Telegraph Herald finally posted a story about the vandalism on June 23, but catch the headline:
Troupe "believes" the graffiti on his home was tied to his abortion opposition, but that may not be true? The story's 1st sentence reiterated the point:
Police are investigating a vandalism case involving a man who believes his house was targeted due to his opposition to Planned Parenthood and abortion.
So Troupe could have been in actuality drawing wild conclusions or hallucinating?
These journalists are either utterly biased or totally void of common sense and simple intelligence.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 28, 1010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
