These are my opinions; yours may differ.
Sep. 2nd, 2008 11:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mijanI'll try to cut down on political ranting after this, but with the election season already this intense, it might be hard to avoid it. Feel free to scroll past my political rambling if you find it boring, or join in if you have something to say.
Just remember:
These are MY opinions; yours may differ.
1. If you're running for one of the highest offices in the land, then the voters SHOULD scrutinize anything and everything about you that might indicate your suitability for that office. Your religious affiliations might indicate that you harbor certain prejudices. Your business associates might indicate special interests that could conflict with your duties. The way you have handled controversy in your previous office indicates how you are likely to handle issues at a higher level. And your judgment about your own family... says a lot.
That being said, OBAMA WAS RIGHT: Lay off the girl. Leave the teenager out of it. She's got enough problems on her plate. Teen pregnancies happen, and I refuse to judge the girl. I have VERY close friends who were unwed teenagers when they got pregnant, and they made the personal choice to keep the kid. (Being pro-choice doesn't mean you would choose an abortion for yourself, or that you'd encourage that option.) And guess what? They were GOOD MOTHERS. Of the two examples I know best, one married the father (and took about 8 years to sort out the marriage, but finally made it work), and the other decided to raise the kid by herself and not marry. BOTH young women raised wonderful kids, with the love and support of their families, BUT IT'S NOT EASY. So, leave Palin's daughter alone. She's got enough problems (like living with her mother).
But Palin herself, as a hypocrite and a poor example of the "values" she claims to represent, is fair game.
2. If Obama or Biden had a pregnant teenage daughter who chose to keep the baby, the candidate would get RIPPED APART by the religious right for their bad parenting skills, and would be blamed for their loose morals as Democrats for the fact that the kid had pre-marital sex. But instead, when it's one of the Republican't candidate's kids, the ReligiousReich Right lauds the family for supporting the daughter (and pressuring her into a shotgun wedding).
3. Is anyone aware that Palin has admitted to smoking marijuana? OPENLY. And she hasn't even claimed that she didn't inhale. She's an admitted pot-user. The Repubs have lost ALL rights to ever insulting Bill Clinton for his past endeavors with the happy grass. However, cocaine is another story altogether... Bush?
4. There are people with learning disabilities. I sympathize and accept that. There are people of deep religious faith. I respect and accept that. What I CAN'T and WON'T accept is willful ignorance.
There seems to be a growing faction of the religious right that not only accepts an anti-science viewpoint, but that actually demonizes and condemns academic work and scientific learning as being undesirable. I've seen them say things to the effect of, "Damn academics. They can't understand the Truth because they know too much!" It's almost like religiosity is a new learning disability for some people, where they get a free pass on learning science and REAL history because they claim it violates their faith. Cry me a river - I went to a private parochial school, and the nuns taught about evolution! Our history teacher taught that the First Amendment guarantees freedom for ALL religions, and that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.
Willful ignorance. I refuse to accept the "but I'm religious" line as an excuse for stupidity and ignorance. Facts: the Anti-Stupid.
So, that's what I've got for today. Tune in again next week when I'll rant about elevators, cheap beer, and crab grass.
Just remember:
These are MY opinions; yours may differ.
1. If you're running for one of the highest offices in the land, then the voters SHOULD scrutinize anything and everything about you that might indicate your suitability for that office. Your religious affiliations might indicate that you harbor certain prejudices. Your business associates might indicate special interests that could conflict with your duties. The way you have handled controversy in your previous office indicates how you are likely to handle issues at a higher level. And your judgment about your own family... says a lot.
That being said, OBAMA WAS RIGHT: Lay off the girl. Leave the teenager out of it. She's got enough problems on her plate. Teen pregnancies happen, and I refuse to judge the girl. I have VERY close friends who were unwed teenagers when they got pregnant, and they made the personal choice to keep the kid. (Being pro-choice doesn't mean you would choose an abortion for yourself, or that you'd encourage that option.) And guess what? They were GOOD MOTHERS. Of the two examples I know best, one married the father (and took about 8 years to sort out the marriage, but finally made it work), and the other decided to raise the kid by herself and not marry. BOTH young women raised wonderful kids, with the love and support of their families, BUT IT'S NOT EASY. So, leave Palin's daughter alone. She's got enough problems (like living with her mother).
But Palin herself, as a hypocrite and a poor example of the "values" she claims to represent, is fair game.
2. If Obama or Biden had a pregnant teenage daughter who chose to keep the baby, the candidate would get RIPPED APART by the religious right for their bad parenting skills, and would be blamed for their loose morals as Democrats for the fact that the kid had pre-marital sex. But instead, when it's one of the Republican't candidate's kids, the Religious
3. Is anyone aware that Palin has admitted to smoking marijuana? OPENLY. And she hasn't even claimed that she didn't inhale. She's an admitted pot-user. The Repubs have lost ALL rights to ever insulting Bill Clinton for his past endeavors with the happy grass. However, cocaine is another story altogether... Bush?
4. There are people with learning disabilities. I sympathize and accept that. There are people of deep religious faith. I respect and accept that. What I CAN'T and WON'T accept is willful ignorance.
There seems to be a growing faction of the religious right that not only accepts an anti-science viewpoint, but that actually demonizes and condemns academic work and scientific learning as being undesirable. I've seen them say things to the effect of, "Damn academics. They can't understand the Truth because they know too much!" It's almost like religiosity is a new learning disability for some people, where they get a free pass on learning science and REAL history because they claim it violates their faith. Cry me a river - I went to a private parochial school, and the nuns taught about evolution! Our history teacher taught that the First Amendment guarantees freedom for ALL religions, and that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.
Willful ignorance. I refuse to accept the "but I'm religious" line as an excuse for stupidity and ignorance. Facts: the Anti-Stupid.
So, that's what I've got for today. Tune in again next week when I'll rant about elevators, cheap beer, and crab grass.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:14 pm (UTC)Oh, absolutely.
I just posted in my own journal about this very issue. I wonder if there's a "Sinning For Dummies" book around that lists the "sins" out there and places them in order of okay to so-so to very terrible. Honestly--I don't remember hearing anything about Dick Cheney's inability to raise a heterosexual daughter when she announced her sexual orientation. Did the media or religious right have a field day with it at the time? I do not remember. But it seems like the sort of issue they'd have had a field day with. But somehow a 17-year old pregnant teen who is going to marry the baby's father (and maybe she wants to, i don't know) seems to get the support of the religious right? Maybe because they think it's better than aborting. I don't know. There is, however, a double standard that's quite disturbing.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:39 pm (UTC)Now. Maybe she does honestly want to do both those things. But. Realistically, is there ANY CHANCE she'd be given an option to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, or NOT get married? Given the amount of press attention and the positions held by her mother?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:59 pm (UTC)That said, let's talk about number four. I'm so incredibly over all these nutjobs deriding science because it doesn't fit with their religious views. The way I see it, if they don't like science and all the wonderful advancements it's brought to us, they should give them up. No antibiotics, no life saving surgeries, no television or internet, no cars, hell, no electricity. They can go back to living in mud brick houses and cook over fires while they pray that God heals their sick child. I find their anti-science blogs to be hypocrisy at the highest level.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 01:29 am (UTC)So many issues with this woman, but my main issue is that she's Republican. The party of White middle-to-upper-class men. And anyone else who wants to vote for them had better sit down and shut up and just come along for the ride. They think nothing of a family with a disabled kid because the wife is the one who has to take care of it (in their view), and therefore it wouldn't be an issue for a candidate, right?
Granted, that's a very narrow view, but look at how many Republicans are non-whites or women.
Which isn't to say that a Democrat would have a much easier time of it if she ended up having a Downs baby, but honestly? I think she'd be far more realistic about it, she'd have more support from friends and family, and quite possibly would retire from office given the responsibility it would take.
If Palin can't see how much work this child will be, she certainly has no right even being Vice President.
/rant
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 02:08 am (UTC)This I agree with so much.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 08:27 pm (UTC)what's crab grass
;)