I’m Missing Big Love

By Loudoun Insider

It’s Sunday night and all I have to look forward to on HBO is the ever more ridiculous and just about unwatchable True Blood.  I miss having a high quality show like Big Love, which also had a very familiar character in Roman Grant, also known as “The Prophet”.  He really gave me lots of insight into how characters like Todd Akin and Dick Black operate.

Which one is scarier???


Comments

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    LI, if you’re looking for entertainment, the headline alone on this is good for a chuckle. The mind reels at the thought of the visioning sessions for this, and what it could feature:

    http://www.leesburgtoday.com/community_life/article_7bef9870-ead6-11e1-b7d5-0019bb2963f4.html

  • Elder Berry says:

    I’ve been enjoying Newsroom on HBO (even though it gets a bit preachy). It definitely shows the chaos behind the news cameras and Jane Fonda having been married to Ted Turner ought to know how to play a network owner. But a real surprise and much appreciated was the mini-series Political Animals on USA . Ciaran Hinds doing a Bill Clinton impression was a hoot and I love Sigorney Weaver in any role. Hope it comes back next season.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Oh man, Barb, I might have to bring back Green McGimsey for that one!

    EB, I abandoned Newsroom for Political Animals – I definitely enjoyed it more and the Clintonesque guy was awesome.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    Say what you want LI, but you protest too much. I don’t know the character you speak of since I don’t watch that show, but I can tell you there’s nothing at all scary about Todd Akin, especially in comparison to Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama.

    The man misspoke, but his belief in protecting innocent human life should not be scary at all to you.

  • BTownite says:

    Rtwing Extrmst, seeing that you’re a self identified right wing extremist I suppose there is nothing scary in your view about a man wanting to criminalize abortions in all cases even when a woman was legitimately raped or became pregnant through incest (never mind the life of the mother). For the other 75 percent of us out here we’ll continue thinking that’s scary.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    Speaking of Black, where the hell has he been? For months he has been MIA, no updates via email, no updates to the fb page…you kind of have to wonder if Black is okay or has some type of health problem.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    BTownite… No-one, and I mean no-one has ever promoted the idea that women should be forced to give up their own lives in exchange for their unborn child’s. That would be an anti-life position.

    However abortion in cases of rape and incest still punishes the unborn child for the crime of another. The death penalty yet… This is not justice, and makes a travesty of our Consitutional rights. This is not at all a scary position.

  • Liz Miller says:

    31 states allow rapists to have visitation and custody of the children that result from their rapes. One of the leading causes of death for pregnant and newly post-partum women is murder. And our country has the highest maternal mortality rate of the developed nations. But no one is asking women to give up their lives.

  • Elder Berry says:

    RTwing, you say no one, but I don’t see where the Republican platform has an exception for the life of the mother. I guess I missed it, correct me if I’m wrong. And if you are willing to make an exception for the life of the mother, how about her mental life. Making a woman bear her own brother or sister is I’m sorry just disgusting and morally repugnant to me and I’m not the one who’d have to do the carrying. And the product of rape, same thing, I know women who have been raped. The Republican position on abortion is something out of the middle ages. A woman’s body is her own and enforced pregnancy is indefensible.

  • Hillsboro says:

    Liz,

    > And our country has the highest maternal mortality rate of the developed nations.

    Do you have a source for this?

  • Hillsboro says:

    … actually, never mind. I see that the CIA Fact Book backs you up for the most part (potential arguments can be made over whether Russia and others are ‘developed’). UNICEF/WHO appears to use a different methodology, which does not seem to back up your assertion.

  • liz says:

    It also depends on the year. However, I was using the CIA numbers.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    Liz,

    While your statistics may be true about murder rates and maternal mortality rates, that has nothing to do with abortion. Neither do the laws allowing visitation.

    Bottom line, if you repsect innocent human life, you should never, ever allow one person to have say over taking the life or death of another innocent human. The one exception is self preservation. So therefore the pro-life position has always allowed for procedures to save the life of the mother when complications due to pregnancy immediately threaten her life. To not respect the life of the mother is just as anti-life a position as abortion itself is. So it is true that no-one is asking women to give up their lives for their unborm children. That is a fact.

    Taking away parental rights of a rapist in my opinion should be the law of the land. If it’s not the law in your state, I would work to enact it.

    Elder,

    Again, you raise a different issue. It comes back to whether or not you respect innocent human life and believe it should be protected. Mental life is life. If your brain dies, the body dies.

    Now perhaps you mean mental “health” which along with a myriad of other “health” issues has been raised as reason for abortion. I would ask you this. In any of these cases should a mother be allowed to kill her infant? Say she did give birth to a child from a rape. Should she be allowed to kill that infant because of the mental anguish or moral repugnance she feels toward the rapist? Should the fact that her father raped her allow her to have the “choice” to kill her newborn sister or brother because of the constant reminder that person gives her of the rape? Mental anguish is no justification for killing innocent human beings.

    The issue should always come back to two questions:

    1. Do you believe that innocent human life should be protected? If your answer is “no”, then that is a scary proposition and all of us should be concerned were that to become the prevailing thought in our society. If the answer is “yes”, then the second question is:

    2. When does human life begin? I believe based on basic biological scientific evidence that the only reasonable answer to this is when the human egg is fertilized by the human sperm, a human life results. Some may disagree, but I believe I am on strong rational and scientific ground.

    It is based on this reasoning that I have come to the conclusion that the pro-life position is in fact the correct one, and that despite what people may wish to be the case, this is not just about a woman controlling her own body, since in abortion there are always at least two lives and bodies involved.

    By the way in no way is this point of view inconsistent with having compassion for women who have been raped or who just find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances. However, compassion for women in such circumstances is no reason to kill an innocent human being.

    For what it’s worth, I have copied below the GOP platform on the area of Sanctity of Life. I find it quite reasonable and compassionate to both women and unborn children, and let’s not forget that about half of all abortions in the US kill immature women. The statistics are even worse for unborn females in other parts of the world.

    “The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
    Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in
    the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity
    of human life and affirm that the unborn child
    has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot
    be infringed. We support a human life amendment
    to the Constitution and endorse legislation to
    make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
    apply to unborn children. We oppose using
    public revenues to promote or perform abortion or
    fund organizations which perform or advocate it and
    will not fund or subsidize health care which includes
    abortion coverage. We support the appointment of
    judges who respect traditional family values and the
    sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual
    withholding or withdrawal of care or
    treatment, including food and water, from people
    with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the
    elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive
    euthanasia and assisted suicide.
    Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit
    the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion
    and permitted States to extend health care coverage
    to children before birth. We urge Congress to
    strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by
    enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on
    healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment
    and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including
    early induction delivery where the death of
    the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban
    sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its
    most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn
    children who are capable of feeling pain; and we
    applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort
    to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children
    in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on
    the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research.
    We support and applaud adult stem cell research
    to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose
    the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose
    federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
    We also salute the many States that have passed
    laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods
    prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic
    regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation
    through a parental consent requirement;
    and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather
    than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned
    pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with
    counseling and adoption alternatives and empower
    them to choose life, and we take comfort in the
    tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed
    Republican legislative initiatives.”

Leave Comment