I almost had the heart to drag all of you through the trail of tears that is the Chosen One’s people feverishly attempting to persuade themselves what a horrible person this Palin woman is, and how terrible it is for the country that John McCain cynically chose a faux female to be his running “mate”, going out of his way to spoil their diversity party and everything. Almost.
My tentative title was to have been, “What if it was Todd?”, wherein I’d hoped to point out the blatant hypocrisy – not to mention misogyny – of those who claim to support a woman’s right to choose (so long as she chooses within their predescribed constraints) and who purport have in their hearts the betterment of womyn (so long as they hew to all the correct orthodoxies and don’t get off the reservation, and all).
The point of the whole thing would have been to juxtapose the kinds of criticism levied made up out of whole cloth against the Alaskan governor. The weird stuff, I mean. The people who point out that maybe eldest son Track was conceived four weeks before the marriage. Like that would mean something important, in context of a long and happy marriage. Against the realization that neither Palin nor her husband were likely even aware of that pregnancy – stipulating arguendo that the math is right – before they tied the knot.
What if it was Todd that was governor and Sarah was his “first gal”? Would it matter then? Who even thinks like that in the 21st century?
Or how about the kind of men who’ve very likely never – I’m nearly certain – delivered a child out of their own loins tut-tutting at Mrs. Palin’s travel plans once pregnant? Would it have reflected on Todd if his wife’s water had broken while he was on a trip? Or are these men substituting their superior neo-natal judgment for that of a mother of five? Does Andrew Sullivan, of all people, really want to go there?
Or how about the mad speculation that Mrs. Palin faked her youngest son’s birth in order to cover for the pregnancy of one of her daughters? As though Occam’s Razor pointed to the likelihood of a teenager having a child with Down’s Syndrome rather than a 40+ year old woman. Would this entirely hypothetical assertion of a purely private family matter deserve even a momentary treatment if Todd was the candidate rather than Sarah?
These are the people, remember, that pretend to be on the side of Women. I mean, what the hell do you make of it? Because for my own part, it reminds me too much of the kind of bitter soul who pretends to love mankind with all his heart, but in practice has no particular use for actual people.
So anyway, I was going to drag you through all of that. But then fortunately for all of us Jeff Goldstein got there firstest with the mostest.
So, you know: Read him.
What an odd flail of a discussion. One simply cannot have society absent morality. This society came courtesy of a Judeo-Christian morality. The society around the Persian Gulf exists courtesy of an Islamic morality.
Each society is totally shaped by the morality at its base. I know which one I prefer.
The Islamic society is now waging war within itself to determine if religious belief will be the master of all or if there is room for western morality in there as well and in the West there is no battle at all as even the religion and moral law succumb to the hedonist lack of any morality at all.
Once upon a time, we in the West shared a common belief of morality but it started to vanish more than a thousand years ago. Still and all, we had common accepted moral standards that precluded infanticide, child brides and things like NAMBLA and these did last for almost 2000 years. The moral fortress has collapsed here in the West but I am more frightened of what it has wrought in the East.
Morals are taught at home but were once enforced by Society. When Society fails to enforce them they become as nothing and we all turn a blind eye to infanticide because if one can fail to act when the littlest one is murdered one can fail to act at any transgression of the moral or secular law.
A Palin National Security Screen:
I wonder if I personally had been a former member and supporter of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIB) as Palin was – and now as the new AK ingénue Gov. Palin has been documented as having been aligned with that party, whose main purpose was the secession of Alaska from the US, and that at times advocated Alaska seceding from the US and joining Canada………
…………Would and could I therefore pass a federal Background Investigation (BI) for TS/SCI and greater – all that are necessary (and time consuming) and even more so for a VP candidate? …. And still not yet complete for this candidate?
And if I did against logic (and regulations) then pass the BI, could I then in good conscious repeat the oath of office? … And still be believed – and comport to the oath?
Obviously not, at least not for me. Nor I suspect the common, honest, and loyal citizens and many readers here …. At least not without some political skullduggery and immense pressure on the poor victim, Palin.
I don’t blame her. I blame an inept McCain, but more so, the many people in the background that now – unlike before – pull his strings.
No Max, they probably would not take no for an answer.
Especially if I told them I was reading Charles Templeton’s book again.
I guess it comes down to this-the things that make McCain attractive to the conservative wing of the party don’t make him attractive to me. Just like the things that made him attractive to independents don’t make him attractive to conservatives.
KM, I’ll see your $35K and raise you another quarter million.
Every time she smiles when I get home, every time I feed her and get that deep baby sigh of contentment, suddenly I could give a rip about the coin I’m spending each month to pay it off.
It’s not like I could pull a $50 from my wallet and get the same sort of joy from having it.
I was lucky, though — I’ve owned both a boat and horses, hence the little tricycle motor seems almost cheap in comparison.
And the boat isn’t going to care for me in my dotage, no matter how much I threaten to cut off its inheritance.
– Max
fliterman, as long as she wasn’t advocating the VIOLENT overthrow of the US Government, she’s good to go on an SF86. That’s pretty much the only political question for a clearance.
Even is today she was advocating the secession of Alaska (which I doubt she is), she’d be good to go- provided she was advocating it through peaceful means.
Shall we dig through your past positions politically with an eye to YOUR security clearance?
Crud, 2 full days of intermittent TV viewing sans BHO ruined just one minute ago. Drat. I was really enjoying Gustav and the whatchamacallit in MN.
Well, OK, not enjoying, just not turning the darned thing on.
Abortion qua abortion is one of the few topics I have sought to studiously avoid on this blog. It’s not just that it’s a red-hot issue in the social wars, one that admits to very little middle ground between the various sides. It’s that real people have made hard choices that those of us who haven’t had to make must live with for the rest of their lives. And after that – if my surmises are correct – they’ll be judged by the only being qualified to do so. Not by me.
I have long held that I believe abortion to be a sin, but that I am not sure it should be a crime. And I am quite certain that we are all sinners, and that we have been warned against throwing the first stone.
My argument here – as elsewhere – is with those who insist that because there is no room in the public square for people of faith to express their view of public morality contingent upon that faith. That they should just shut up about it, if they had a shred of decency. Or else cloak their morality in some utilitarian disguise.
We are a nation of laws, and those laws are informed by our collective belief as to what does and does not constitute “right acts” with respect to each other. These interactions are balanced by a constitutional predisposition towards maximizing individual liberty, hence the inherent tensions in our social fabric.
But liberty and libertinism are not the same, and if you are free to act, then I am free to criticize those actions and even agitate with my friends to set in motion legal restraints against such action. Which you and your friends are free to oppose and between whose points of view those who interpret the Constitution shall eventually judge the merits.
This is important stuff: Fundamentally, there are those who believe in absolutes of good and evil, measurable degrees of which tend at either end towards the infinite. On the side of good as it goes off the scale they discern the outlines of an organizing force to the universe that can distinguish between the two and that which choose to make those distinctions. From that belief a host of inferences fall that require the believer to act in a certain way, in accordance with his conscience.
The non-believer – or he that believes in but a little way, or uncertainly – looks at the same set of universal facts and draws a different conclusion set. Being uncertain or unpersuaded, he balks at imposing his own beliefs and uncertainties upon others. He seeks – if not a common ground – than at least a maximally inclusive and forgiving one. This is not a wrong thing for him to do, based on his understanding of the universe.
But then there are those – on either side – who seek to impose their vision on the rest of us. Which is all to the good: Again, what are laws but what we have collectively decided they ought to be?
But when secularists submit that only secular morality may inform the debate, that religiously derived value discussions are impermissible, they have substituted their own belief – based on ambiguous evidence – upon that of others and declared it the only valid grounds for discourse. The have in effect done that which they believe their opponents would do by substituting the smothering oppression of their own morality for that they would impute to another. There is no virtue in this.
An alternate hypothesis exists: That the world should accustom itself to the outer boundaries of the most libertinist exception. In that space the sociopath is as free to pursue his little games as the utilitarian is to weigh the social costs of permitting disabled children to be born. Because, you know: Of the burden on the rest of us.
We are not quite there yet.
KM — let’s set the record straight here — despite your feigned indignation, no one here wants you silenced, so stop the passive-aggressive behavior, OK? Second, did YOU pay $35K for that birth, or was that your “bill”? And if it was the latter, who paid it? Third, if you have someone who truly needs a low cost vaginal delivery, the The Midwifery Center at DePaul hospital in Norfolk will do them for patient payers for $5K.
Lex — your thoughts bring to mind Richard John Neuhaus’s book “The Naked Public Square”, where he basically lays out the same argument — that it is irrational to say that religiously formed values have no place in the public discourse, only those formed in the absence of religious values. For me, the best example of “injecting” religious values into governmental issues is Dietrich Bonhoffer’s “The Cost of Discipleship” (actually, Bonhoffer’s life is the best example!). There are many who want to put Christianity back in the monastery — sorry, Luther brought it out, never to return. Bonhoffer taught that to truly follow Christ, required a willingness to confront political issues — in his case, and in his time, to speak out against Nazism. This decision led ultimately to his death. He helped raise money for Jews to escape to Switzerland, was discovered, imprisoned, and hanged in 1945. His discussion of “cheap grace” is worth the reading, and helped me form much of my personal belief in this area.
Filterman,
A NYT vetting could be of use since Gov. Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party according to the McCain campaign. But then maybe with the help of Canadian intel operatives she has managed to fake being a registered republican since 1982 (or perhaps the vast evangelical Christian conspiracy doctored the records – or, could they be the same thing?). Can’t blame you for making such a mistake but do understand why so many on the right have such a strong (and at times unhealthy) allergic reaction to the MSM.
PS: I guess in addition to this as an egregious, unforgivable error for the “paper of record” there is the question of how Sen. Obama’s ties with Rezko or Bill Ayers don’t merit front page treatment but this morning we have 3 on Gov. Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. Seems to me a bit of a problem, nicht wahr? (I threw in the last so, uh, Sen. Obama, wouldn’t be ashamed of me). Raises questios of priorities, non?
If Sarah Palin was a fiscally conservative, very accomplished, challenge the status quo, budget reforming, atheist governor would many Republicans still be supporting her?
Probably not, but if you drop the “fiscally conservative, very accomplished, challenge the status quo, and budget reforming,” Democrats would positively swoon over her.
I don’t have the time to get into the histrionics of the left regarding Palin. It’s obviously they fear her immensely, and that fear has led to a pandemic of foaming mouth desperation groping to find something that will ruin her in the eyes of the public. The more desperate the groping, the more they will turn off the vast majority of voters. But one gem above I cannot allow to pass without comment, from KM:
“Do you know what a hospital birth without complications costs these days? Minimum $25,000.”
I’ve had five kids, and that has not been my experience. I had twins born 6 weeks prematurely, and they spent a week in the NICU. Total charges for that came to around $30,000 before insurance coverage began. I’ve had one daughter in the hospital for up to a week recently receiving extensive pulmonary therapy and numerous tests and procedures, and that cost $14,000, before insurance. During our “normal” childbirths, the charges ran around $5,000-$6,000.
Tossing ecomonics into a decision like child-birth doesn’t happen often, at least not in my universe. I don’t think it happens often in other people’s universes, either, unless they were predisposed to abort their child anyway, and are looking for an excuse to do so.
Just my $.02.
I lived in Alaska for about 27 years, retiring last year. I watched Sarah Palin run an outsiders campaign against the professional politicians, first Republicans, then the Democrats, although in Alaska the differences are usually pretty fine; they all want to spend your money for you. I don’t remember religion being an issue. Her message was basically to eliminate the ‘good old boy’ approach to government. She has managed to make a dent in the problem, hence her 80% favorable rating in Alaska. The other 20% were part of the ‘good old boy’ clan. But someone here hit one of my ‘hot buttons’ with the reference to the Alaskan permanent fund being used as a bribe by Palin or politicians in general. It is actually designed to prevent politicians from using it to enrich their friends. The petroleum on State land belongs collectively to the citizens of the state. 25% of the revenue from the sale of oil goes into the Permanent fund bypassing the greasy paws of the political class. 50% of the interest goes back in to inflation proof the fund. The other 50% is paid out directly to each individual citizen. This makes it extremely difficult for politicians to change the original law and raid the fund. It is also probably the only government program in existence that is administered equally and fairly, although I am certain there are some ‘progressives’ who would disagree.