Palin’s children should take priority over being Vice President
Okay. Look. I wasn’t going to tell you what I think of Sarah Palin, but so many people are asking, so fine. Here it is. She is nuts. And the Republicans are nuts for putting her on a ticket. She has a five-month-old kid with Down’s Syndrome.
Why is no one writing about this? I have a special needs kid. I have two. Here’s what happens when you have a special needs kid. You are in shock. You love the kid. I loved my first one so much that even though there was something like an 80% chance of having another kid with autism, I had a second kid.
And guess what? The second kid had a different disability than the first. Amazing. Statistically phenomenal, really. But my point here is that I’m very qualified to tell you what it’s like to be a breadwinner mom of a five-month-old special needs kid. And, it’s not just from my perspective. I am a magnet for breadwinner moms. They constantly write to me. And when I write about this topic—being the breadwinner and having a special needs kid—women come out of the woodwork. They all say exactly what I’m telling you now: it’s insane. It’s insanely hard.
Here’s what’s insanely hard. You go through a mourning period. Don’t tell me about love and how everyone is different. Because everyone is the same about their kids: They love their kids no matter what, and they didn’t plan on having a special needs kid, no matter what. So you need adjusting time.
And here’s more I know from both statistics and first-hand experience: It’s nearly impossible to keep a marriage together with a special needs kid. And it’s nearly impossible to keep a marriage together when the husband quits his job to take care of the kids (which Palin’s husband just did). And Sarah needs her marriage to stay together pretty badly right now.
And who will take care of the newest member of the family? Certainly not the 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant with the newest kid. So the dad now has three teens at home and soon two kids under one year old at home and one has special needs. This is not a reasonable job. For anyone.
I know that I’m going to be reminded me that I have a nanny, a house manager, and a cleaning woman (who actually shows up every day). But I also have a job that allows me to leave at 2:30. It’s a compromise for me. Because every parent in the world has had to compromise, and it’s fair to judge public figures on the choices they make.
It’s really hard to know where to compromise. Here’s what I was doing when my kid was five months old: I was at home. Hating it. Telling myself that I was not cut out to be at home. I was sort of a columnist and sort of a mom and sort of a psychopath. Because having a five-month-old with special needs is very very hard. Not just learning to take care of the baby, but mentally coping.
Why is no one talking about this? The Republicans should dump Palin. She’s got too much responsibility at home.
Don’t tell me that this is not fair to women. Because you know what? People should have railed against John Edwards running for President when he had two young kids at home and a wife fighting cancer. Fine if she wants him to run for office while she fights the cancer. I get it. But I don’t get how the President of the United States was going to have time to console two school age kids about their mom’s death while leading the country. It’s irresponsible.
I know it’s not cool to tell people how to parent. I know it’s not cool because every day someone asks me how I run my company when I have two young kids and what they are really saying is “you suck as a parent.” It’s hard to hear every day, so I have empathy for the idea that everyone should shut up about how other people parent.
But it’s absurd how extreme these presidential-wanna-be cases are. I don’t want someone in the White House who has kids at home who desperately need them. I don’t want to watch that scenario unfold on national TV. So at some point, it must be okay to speak up. At some point we have to say that we have standards for parenting and we want the community to uphold them.
Deepak Chopra is now an authority on politics?
Sarah Palin is selfish,putting her vp position over her children, no nanny could supply a mother’s love and understanding. If she dis her kids…she will dis America even worse….she is the worse person in the world.
People Please get her out.
Sarah Palin …think that she is more man than McCain to do the Job of winning; she is a Mose with lipstick to think that people are hood winked with her Ideas, lies and fronting up to McCain, she is a Phony….Phony….Phony. She is no Hillary Clinton, she knows nothing about any thing…except though a crash course in Political affairs …Please this women is a mad woman who is willing to sacrifice her young for a VP position. She don’t care about her children…she turned her husband into a nanny and a fag. He si Mr.Mom. Being a caregiver and nanny is a woman job;Sarah Palin will go out and do the man’s job of running the world…While her husband wear the apron…she will not be bothered with her kids, all 5 of them she will…push them off on stupid hubby besides she is assumed her self to be smarter than he is. Sarah Palin is a jerk.
Dear Shefaly, Why does Deepak Chopra have to be an ‘authority on politics’ to express his view that there is a spiritual component to the unfolding political events? And Dear Alexis, Why to comments have to turn hateful and personal to express one’s differing views? The ‘silver lining,’ if you will, could be the beginning of a respectful national dialog which leads to more support for families. With regards to Sarah Palin, the more she speaks, the more she will be revealed.
Lynne. I’ll check out Deepak, his post sounds very interesting. I sure feel that some kind of dark forces are at work here.. Reagan may not have been the beginning of the end for this country, but I know we are still suffering from the effects of his economic policies. Today so many people are so completely programmed by media types now, I don’t know if people in this country are capable of making rational choices any more. It’s demoralizing to realize that we are no longer able to choose the individual who is most able to steer the ship, but instead we end up with the person who is best at being elected captain. But hey, at least we all know where to get those spiffy red shoes and glasses frames, eh? Kill me now, please.
What Steve, You don’t think Ms. Palin can click those ruby slippers together to take us home? Home to a place where global warming and the resulting climatic fallout doesn’t exist? Home to a place where the only endangered species are gay men and womeb? Home to a place where family values but not family planning are taught in schools where books are banned? Home to a place where those who disagree are simply fired? Home to a place where the wealthiest are allowed to continue prospering on the backs of an entire nation and planet? Home to a place where a ‘wild west’ shoot-em-up mentality replaces diplomacy? You bet it’s scary! The stakes are INCRECREDIBLY HIGH! To those policies to nowhere, let’s just say NO THANKS!
Ok, I must admit to having only read/skimmed the comments on this article, so please forgive me if I’m repeating something that’s already been said. Seems like people are pretty divided over this issue. There’s the “how sexist of you” camp and the “it’s time someone said this” camp. My perspective is this:
Palin should have turned down the nomination. Not because she is the mother of 5. Nor because she has an infant with Downs Syndrome. She should have turned it down because of Bristol.
Put yourself in her shoes and really think about what she has done. Imagine it. You are the mother (or father) of a pregnant teen. You are already a governor, AND one who ran on a socially conservative, family-values platform, so your daughter will be put under a microscope when her pregnancy is inevitably discovered. But you govern a small state, and luckily (for you, your daughter, your whole family) one that is removed enough from the lower 48 that few, if any of us, would have heard or paid much attention to your daughter’s situation. Then you get the call about running for VP. Who do YOU think of? I can tell you who I and every other mother I’ve talked to–when the situation has been put to them this way–thought of. THEIR DAUGHTER. In fact, most have said they’d have turned it down and not even told their family it had been offered, to spare their daughter any guilt she might have later felt about the sacrifice her mom made for her. And please, to everyone who would spout the “but it’s the offer of a lifetime” line, the woman is 44 years old and not even 2 years into her term as Alaska’s governor. If she wants to be president so badly–and make no mistake, that’s what most VP candidates (other than Cheney, that is) want is to win the election, get voted in for 2 terms and then be the party’s presumptive nominee in 8 years–she’s got more than enough time to get her ducks in a row and run her own presidential campaign under her own steam and on her own terms. Bristol would be a young adult raising her child, with no obligation to take the national stage and be humiliated. The press would dig up the story of her child’s birth, but at that time it would be very old, very stale news that would be much easier to dismiss as the irrelevant cheap shot it would be at that late date.
Instead, the woman sacrificed her own flesh and blood on the altar of her all-consuming political ambition. She threw that girl to the international media, let them feast and then cried foul when things turned bloody. And while I’m not saying to unquestioningly believe everything the MSM writes about her, too much has been uncovered about her tenure as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska by newspapers all across the nation not to see the naked ambition she embodies, which tends to give some credence to my negative visceral reaction to her accepting this nomination in the first place. Can you say “Mommy Dearest?” She should have spent more time “blinking” and THINKING about the consequences of her actions. Anyone who is this cavalier with her own child is not someone I trust to safeguard the best interests of the United States, should those interests ever conflict with her own egotistical agenda.
My sentiments exactly, except you left out the parts about who put this whole thing in motion, the Carl Rove Republican manipulation machine.
Did anyone catch the fact that ‘Mommy Dearest’ and ‘Daddy Dearest’ give birth to their first child a short eight months after they eloped?
I guess maybe they do share the same ‘family
values!’
Does it make me a bad person to delight in the collective apoplexy of those possessing a different world view and ideology?
And look here – Sarah and Todd were likely pregnant when they eloped? I am trying no to giggle. I suppose fornication is a sin in most any church so are we now persecuting her on the basis of “sin”?
Really?
I can actually respect the people that oppose her on the basis of her stance on abortion and firearms (we know they scare you city folk, it’s ok; gun ownership is a right, not a requirement) and all the other issues real and imagined.
Still, the most ridiculous argument is that she needs to stay home with her poor lost little children. I know you care, I know you feel things so… deeply, but this is beyond theater and firmly in the realm of the preposterous.
Now please carry on.
No, Really, David. Actually, I think it was Sarah who was likely to have been pregnant, not Sarah and Todd.
We are presecuting her on the basis of hypocracy, not sin. As for guns, us city folk have more to worry about than shooting wolves out of airplanes in a fly-by. Here, we have a different kind of issue, called a drive-by shooting, and it is people who die,usually our children, not wolves. It’s a little more up close and personal, and it’s not theatre, Dave, it’s reality. No kids right?
Sorry, I meant prosecuting, not presecuting.
Her ‘sin’ is hyprocacy! Something she seems to share with the McCains who applied for a marriage liscense before John got divorced from his first family! They are the one who seem to have placed themselves on that pedestal. Sorry for noticing. But then, the Palin/McCain team doesn’t seem to be bothered much with those pesky facts lately as Palin keeps spouting the same BS lines written by someone else, irrelevant of the facts. And guess what, David? Country girl here. Typing while enjoying the geese and cranes and herons in my back yard pond WITHOUT A GUN! Just looking for a little ‘truth in advertising’ not theater!
Three words people:
PARENTING BY PROXY!!!
Is it really fair to a child that a mother or father “have their cake and eat it too”? Really, in the end, how does a child benefit being without their mother those first six months? Can any of you on this comment thread give a true BENEFIT to a new, special needs baby being without its mother. I would LOVE to hear it.
Being a lacation educator, I am wondering (in a very nosy way, of course) if this special needs child is getting human milk. But I digress.
This goes beyong being feminist, politically inclined, male or female, gay or straight. It is about doing what is right. Sure, Dad can raise kids. Those of you who claim Todd (?)Palin is a loving devoted father; HOW do you know this? Those of you that claim help in the form of nannies and older children (ask me about my daughter’s friend, the oldest in a family of five, who ran away because she was constantly being handed a baby to co-parent before the age of 15), are you trying to convince us on here that THIS is an IDEAL way to raise any child? Hasn’t the last two decades of kids raised without IDEAL attachment, who are now part of escalating violence and other social ills taught us ANYTHING? Don’t have time for kids? Don’t have them!!! Having them anyway? Step up and make at least one year of commitment…it is the most crucial time in a child’s life.
And to clarify…I am one crazy, liberal, stay-at-home-work-from-home, homeschooling parent of two kids, one husband (who owns his own business), one dog, and 11 goats. I was raised by a single parent who got bashed for being single, got lower pay, and barely made ends meet. But when my father walked out, she elected to go on welfare, get a degree and stay home until I was school aged. Everyone has a choice. Sarah Palin’s choice speaks volumes to me. I do not want a VP that can so easily walk away from a new baby. If you can do that, your decision making can be easily as cold and heartless. Period.
Dear crazy, liberal, stay-at-home-work-from-home, homeschooling mom: You go girl!
Steve,
Two kids, one on the way.
Jaime,
Please clarify what you mean by “escalating violence”. Violent crime has been on the decline since the 1990s.
Also, there is no single “ideal” way to raise a child. All children, families and circumstances are different. All parents make mistakes and sacrifices. Most interesting is that while most kids turn out more or less ok, there are plenty of examples of great kids coming from horrible parents and horrible kids coming from great parents. In the end, we are all individuals and we choose our behavior.
My boys were breast fed past their first birthday and raised by their stay at home mom who taught the oldest to read and do math before sending him to first grade at the local public school. We do a lot right and plenty wrong, but we trust it will all work out
Lynne,
I am relieved to know that the fowl have not taken up arms against your abode. Should their disposition change and diplomacy fail, virtually any shotgun should put an end to hostilities in short order. If you are not in possession, I am sure a local libertarian would be glad to lend you…
Women are not being deprived of rights or hurt in any way by taking responsibility for the children they’ve been blessed with. Tough is not more important than responsible. In this case, Palin’s tough, to me, is an example of cold-hearted run-away ambition. Her poor judgement with this child began during her pregnancy when she hid her pregnancy for so very long, traveled 4 weeks before her due date without medical consent, kept traveling with LEAKING AMNIOTIC FLUID, and then traveled back to Alaska from Texas after her water broke! For a woman who calls abortion for a rape victim murder, what does she call risking her own child’s life for her selfish ambition?
And please spare me the women’s lib tirade! I’m all for women’s rights and my husband even played Mr. Mom for a year after my second child was born. However, I did stay with my baby for 3 months before I left. He can love our babies, but he can’t give them my smell or my milk or my heartbeat those things that only mothers are engineered to do. If a woman cannot commit at least a few weeks to a child, then she shouldn’t have one. I can even understand a mother going back to work after 3 weeks, but 3 days?!! For those people who don’t want to understand that, I have nothing for them, b/c there’s obviously nothing can be said to them!
And women can work and learn and earn and play like men, but when they choose to have a baby, they must put that child’s welfare before their own at least for a little while. There is no comparison between Palin’s family and the Obama’s. And it has NOTHING to do with the fact that Barrack is running b/c if it were Michelle running and him in her shoes, I’d be just fine with it. They have the strong support of Micehelle’s mother and those girls are around both of those parents. Palin’s family values, or lack thereof, are VERY important to me as a voter. This is a woman who might lead this country and her values are so far removed from my own, that the thought of her as our leader makes me shudder! Add to this the fact that she voted against legislation for young mothers and for special needs children, and has only now began to show support for those causes, b/c it affects her directly shows me that she is incapable of supporting anything that doesn’t help her or her own.
As for those people who just bashed you with their comments, I say that they need to improve their reading comprehension skills, but then again, the ignorant usually lack in that area, don’t they?
By the way, to Susan, who had to work and raise her kids alone…AMEN to your post!! What a perfect way to put it, “You can have it all, but not all at the same time.” You’re absolutely right! I’ve spoken with women who get angry about this b/c they’ve been forced by circumstances to work long hours away from their children. Two huge differences here: 1. Palin CHOSE this, it didn’t choose her, and 2. none of them was going to run the country!
And why do all those people who don’t know bubkis about Mr. Palin want to assert that his is this fantastic parent?! We know very little about him, mostly b/c the Palins and the GOP purposely dodge us at every turn. The only thing I know about him is that he like to race in the snow and drive drunk. Yeah, that was kind of petty of me, but far less petty than Sarah’s values!
I agree completely. I’m a mother and a feminist who had to work full-time all my life. It is so hard, and I only had two children and none of them were special needs. Yes, women can have it all, but we can’t have it all at the same time. If Palin’s children were older, it would be different, but with so many so young and her oldest daughter pregnant, taking on the huge job of running for VP right now is not in the best interests of her family. I say Children First, not Country First. When our children are taken care of, then we can focus on country or God or whatever.
I’m interested that most people who chimed in with special needs kids completely agreed, and others completely fail to notice that fact.
I grew up in a house of three girls, one of which was SEVERELY special needs. Our lives were completely entangled in taking care of the disabled child. Then my parents divorced. It went from both parents working and paying for our needs to just my mother, who had to work to keep us all in our home. We were lucky enough to qualify for assistance with daily care nurses due to the severity of the special needs. Without that, it would have been impossible.
New clothes for school each year? A joke. Eating out? Didn’t happen. Vacations? Never had one.
Sarah Palin would be effectively leaving her children’s lives. Those of you out there asking about Nancy Pelosi aren’t mentioning she didn’t start out as a senator with a five year old and doesn’t have special needs children. Sarah’s children are YOUNG, and they have disabilities.
It takes two adults, and often the rest of the family as well, to take effective care of special needs children, especially when there are other children involved. I have BEEN there, and it is hard. My mother’s life is STILL wrapped up in taking care of my now 28 year old sister with special needs. And she only lived that long because my mother made sacrifices.
We don’t see Sarah making those sacrifices. Perhaps Bristol’s pregnancy is already an effect of Sarah’s disappearing involvement in her family.
This isn’t about partisan politics or sexism. These are facts. If you want me to talk politics or gender rights, read my blog.
This is about equal responsibility for choices one has made and the circumstances one lives with. Believe me, as a woman, I’m all for women achieving whatever they want to achieve, for equal treatment and equal compensation.
It isn’t saying women can’t be whatever they want to be if they are qualified to be it.
Sexism is when decisions are made or actions are taken based upon one’s gender. By definition, all those complaining that she should be able to go ahead and be vice president and ignore her family because she is a woman are themselves being sexist.
It’s about the most qualified person for the job, regardless of gender. That’s what we are fighting for, people. Not for women to get a free-ride because we had it bad for so long. By excusing Sarah of her responsibilities as a parent in order to support her bid for the White House, you are undermining everything that we’ve fought for.
We shouldn’t excuse male candidates from the same responsibilities.
Would you vote for someone who was irresponsible in their job? So, why doesn’t their job as a parent count?
Would you vote for someone who doesn’t pay their bills? So, why would you vote for someone who doesn’t take care of their kids?
Would you vote for someone who may have an outside interest company that would take up a lot of their time from working in the White House? So, why would you vote for someone whose family life might seriously impact the time they have available to help run the country?
It is a valid concern. One reason Sarah Palin is not qualified to be the vice-president because her overwhelming workload at home will be more than will allow her to aptly focus on her potential job…
…you know, as the VP for the party that is supposed to represent strong family-values.
Again, I would like to thank all the liberals for further proving my point that the panic you feel has everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with any real concern for her or her children.
Tracy:
The 60% cut to special needs children in Alaska is incorrect. The funding was split from a single budgetary item to two items and funding went from 7.9M (2006) to 8.85M to 9.2M (2008) Hardly a 60% cut, but a quick visit to factcheck.org might disappoint you with the truth.
@ Steve: preach on. That’s exactly how I feel – that women are being manipulated by the Palin addition to the ticket. It’s hugely insulting.
Lane,
Her “children” have “disabilities”?
She has a baby with Down Syndrome. If she is elected, she will have a huge house and lots of staff to cover the daily grind and her husband and her to help with the kids, plus I am sure they can afford to hire an extra hand to help.
Obviously you had a unique experience growing up, but we do not know that Sarah Palin’s son will be so severely disabled and they seem to have access to plenty of resources.
If you think what she is doing is child abuse, then you should call social services. When the laughing subsides, they might tell you – people are free to raise their children the way they see fit.
Poor kids, this is what they have to be raised in:
1. Parents with a 20 year marriage.
2. Four siblings
3. Successful, hard working parents
4. A nice home on a lake in one of the most beautiful places on earth.
4b. A nice historical home in Washington DC
5. Extensive family and friends
6. All your basic necessities met (food, health care, education, etc)
Her kids have more social and material resources than 99% of the children in this country. They will probably be fine, but there is no way to guarantee that.
Some times you people seem crazy, but then I realize that the ideological threat is just that scary and fear can make us act irrationally.
Lane,
Who are these women and why are they so feeble minded that they are so easily manipulated by the Republican Mind Control Machine?
Are they only “thinking for them selves” when they agree with your program?
David,
I stand corrected. Shame on me for not checking my facts for that one; however, the most important facts for me still stand. Her irresponsibility as a pregnant mother and now a mother of, among others, a 5 month old downs syndrom child, shows judgement far from anything I find acceptable. And to those people who want to applaud her ability to pay others to raise her children, especially her infant, there’s little I can say if they don’t understand the difference. Her declarations against a woman’s right to choose are far from anything that should even be on the table in this day and age.
I also will not bother to debate further with someone like yourself; it’s pointless. I will let you know, however, that liberal sounds an awful lot like liberty and views of conservatives sound to me like people who don’t buy into the idea of the new world. Perhaps conservatives would be more comfortable in a country where there is no division of church and state…
David. Here’s something really scary. I was just looking up something in Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary(I know, I know, it’s REALLY old), and for the heck of it, I looked up the definition of “Liberal”. Where did we go wrong??? I don’t know if I’ll be able to sleep tonight.
Steve
Steve,
I don’t have a problem with being a liberal in the abstract, only when it is applied to specific things.
I worked with some groups in California that challenged the racial and gender discrimination in the issuance of pistol carry permits (ie: people who are not rich white males need not apply).
So in that context, was I a conservative because I believe that the second amendment applies to everyone or was I a liberal for trying to hold authorities accountable for the inequitable application of their discretion?
Not many Democrats in California really care to see concealed pistol permits become more widely available – but how do they feel knowing that the ones that ARE available are issued in a way that is repugnant to anyone believing in equality.
So what is a good “liberal” or “progressive” to do? Make the system gender and color blind? to advance equal protection – that’s pretty progressive, or do we keep the system discriminatory so that there are “fewer guns on the street” – isn’t that a frequent aim (no pun intended) of “progressives”?
We found that most people preferred to ignore the situation as parsing their values at that level was… problematical – especially after they verified the party affiliation of the gored ox.
So my larger point is that we can all be defined as liberals or conservatives if we go by the definition of the words – thats the human experience – to advance what we aspire to and protect what we hold dear. When we get what we want, we call it “good” and when the people who hold opposing values get what they want, we call it “bad”.
Perhaps that is why politicians try, as much as possible, to stay as undefined as possible and present them selves as “For good things and against bad things”.
I mean, only a bad person could be opposed to that – right?
@ David: Agree with my program? I don’t have a program. I’m just a really concerned woman.
If you read the comment I was responding to, it said:
“I have said this before, and I’m sticking to my guns. Carl Rove, John McCain and the Republican party couldn’t care less what women think or want. The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate is designed to pit republican women against non-republican women, neutralizing your votes. ALL women are being manipulated here, and by extension, everyone else in this country as well.”
I agree that the addition of Sarah Palin is a maneuver to manipulate the Women’s Issues vote, and use Feminism as a weapon againt Feminists. Notice all the BS every time the McCain group claims “SEXISM! OMG SEXISM!” at anything and everything said about Palin. It’s making a laughing stock of everything we’ve fought for.
If you don’t agree with them, then you aren’t a real feminist. If you do agree with them, then you trash everything that feminists have fought for. It’s a Catch-22 situation where feminist goals lose either way.
You don’t have to be a scholar to recognize it.
@ David: You can debate labels, but in the same breath call someone “crazy”. Nice.
Despite the fact that they could hire a COUNTRY full of people to take care of her special needs child (does “special needs” make you happier than “disabilities”?), it still means that effectively, she is choosing to not be a parent to her child.
She has the right to make that choice, but it doesn’t give her the right to claim that she is a symbol of family values. OR a good mom.
Just hand the child over to a bunch of caretakers. Someone will make sure the child is cared for, right? Oh, and the other four as well. Dad’s up for the task of handling FIVE children, one of whom is knocked up (i.e. making poor life choices), and another that has Down’s Syndrome, right?
And a 20 year marriage means little if it isn’t a healthy one. I have no knowledge to the contrary. I’m just saying that a marriage is not a sure sign that things will be OK.
Our economy is showing that a lot of those material things are pretty transitory, and not necessary for raising a quality person. Nice homes, all the toys you could want, more social and material resources than 99% of the rest of the country, and your own nanny don’t make up for a missing parent.
This represents a lot of the problems in our economy too: people want it all, without the sacrifice that comes into that. That might be why so many people yell “Sexist!” when we bring up that Sarah is abandonning her child for her career. There is a myth that gender equality means the right to HAVE IT ALL.
Things are terribly unbalanced in our social structure, and YES, it is not fair that men have typically been allowed to choose their work over their families. But that doesn’t mean that just because men got to do it, women should do it too. NO one should be able to do it. If you are going to focus on your career, you should perhaps reconsider having children. Especially reconsider having FIVE children. Especially when one those children have cognitive hindrances, and he’s still a BABY.
*gasp* Did I say that? I did.
Just because you CAN do eight things at once doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Some of us have had to make those choices because it’s the only way we can survive (hat tip to all the single moms out there). But that doesn’t mean that the family doesn’t suffer – and make plenty of sacrifices.
Seriously – it’s about making choices. Quality, not quantity. I agree that it is sad that women might feel they HAVE to make such choices in order to feel they are equal.
David. Think about how many situations arise in which the meaning of or the context of words used lie at the root of conflict and confusion, even great suffering. The Bible, The Qur’an, The Constitution, the local zoning laws?
“Good” and “Bad” are subjective words at best, and using these words to summarize or identify anything is asking for trouble. My definition of a “good” raw oyster versus a “bad” raw oyster is going to be way different than that of a lot of people in the world.
Context and meaning are everything in language, and are difficult enough to understand, without mixing zealotry and stupid people into the stew. When you toss in individuals who don’t understand or care about the difference between freedom and license, or worse, try to redfine the meanings of the words, I don’t believe that rational actions or emotions are going to result.
I recently heard a discussion regarding gun onwership and felons, in the context of prison overcrowding in California. Many residents of the prison system are felons who violated probation or parole by carrying a weapon. The issue raised was that because they are felons, they are forced to live in the most violent areas, or are most likely to have come from and will return to the most violent areas. The hypothesis is: because of this situation, they are most in need of carrying weapons for the purpose of self-defense, which they do; and so they are constantly in violation of the law, and are constantly reappearing at the doors of our prisons, which greatly contributes to overcrowding. I don’t know about you, but I can’t really argue with that logic, racist or not.
I don’t want to get off on a 2nd amendment tangent here, my point is that in the logic of specific things, there are arguments that seem absurd but that in reality are real problems for real people. In general, I believe that most people are disturbed by senseless killings, and that seems to be what we get the most of in the cities. The operative word here is senseless. The idea that the senselessness is somehow going to go away, simply because everyone may be packing a concealed weapon, seems to be missing some evidence to back it up. I have actually heard arguments that gun ownership should not be limited to rifles and handguns, but that hey, if you can afford it, tanks, stinger missles, and aircraft carriers should be on the table as well. Look at the militias in the rest of the world. Is that what we want? If we have to have two camps on the the gun control issue, which one will you pitch your tent in? Whose testimony is more valid, the gun collector whose life has never been touched by violent death or the mother whose child has been murdered in a drive-by?
The meaning of words cannot be altered or re-defined to meet the needs of special interest groups. This is how we communicate, for the most part. The quickest way to hasten the breakdown in communication and cooperation is to use subjective words as lables or definitions of anything, or worse, to assign subjective meaning to words that have never embraced subjectivity. If we allow that to happen, where do we draw the line? What is the meaning of truth? How about integrity, lying, manipulation, war, peace? What is suffering? Is it good or is it bad? What the heck is the pursuit of happiness?
These days, wisdom is in short supply, I’m afraid.
Steve
Lane,
I intentionally used the term crazy indirectly. I do not think you are crazy.
From my perspective – and help me out here – in reading your reaction, there does not seem to be a legitimate space for a woman to be a “feminist” and a “conservative”. I am not an expert, but I always thought feminism was about equal pay and equal treatment and the same rights for women. I can’t imagine anyone from GenX or younger thinking anything less is acceptable.
People are not excited about Palin because she is a woman, they are excited about her because she is an unusual combination of conservative ideals packaged in a strong woman (and the face that she makes “progressives” insane is just a huge bonus)
The attraction is in the alignment with rural and middle America and the people that share her values.
What I think I see is people on the left who cannot imagine that people would like SP for any real reason so she must be a puppet or a cynical play to the “we will vote for any female Republican” crowd that the left imagines MUST exist.
Meanwhile, the people on the right that like her are intrigued by her personal story, the pioneer woman idiom and the plain spoken right wing values – it feels very authentic to that side.
Perhaps her current popularity is mucking with the previously well defined lines of feminism. I have always agreed with feminism in the abstract, but not so often with the embodiment of it in lefty groups like NOW, etc. I think a lot of people on the ideological right have felt this way but have not had an outlet for it – now along comes Palin and people think – yes! this is the other side of the coin!
And it is mucking with the image of feminism – it seems like the abortion issue is, in the minds of the left, inextricable linked to the heart of feminism. This can have the effect of making people who are against abortion appear to be against all forms of gender equality – this is kind of what I was saying in my previous post. Why should it all be a package deal?
Again, its really pissing off the left and the old school feminists – I don’t think that was the intent, but politically, its a nice bonus for the right.
Steve,
I do agree with you. So much of the political battleground now is within the language. Pro-life and Pro-choice are good examples (don’t we all want life and choice?)
This happens for one reason – to avoid an ideological discussion on the merits of an issue. Take the language, take control – make it emotional and spin it in a way that that people are loath to oppose you. Who can say “I am against life!” Who can say “I believe that a womans right to control her body supercedes a fetus right to live” (answer: Camille Paglia – very credibly I might add – but the intellectual heavy lifting to get there is beyond most people)
This is truly my primary (but not only) issue with Obama – it is really with David Axelrod and his belief that the campaign should not be about ideology or policy, but about personality. He is playing to win, and I admire that, but I find that idea to be unpersuasive and alarming: we want to know about your views on the Constitution (living document? strict constructionist? *cough*) and economics and all of that. No no – it’s about “change we need”, etc.
David. I don’t know about Paglia, but if she was all that enthralled by the Palin speech, I have my doubts. I thought it was canned and predictable. And all these years I though Public Speaking and Debating classes were for losers…
For me, it is the fear I know versus the fear of the unknown. I’ll address the fear I know every time. It is always been a mistery to me how the same set of facts, especially numbers, can be looked at by knowledgeable, trained people, yet two(or more) different conclusions can be drawn. That’s why statistical analysis is so fascinating. Everyone knows, if you torture the data enough, it will confess. At the same time, sometimes something that seemed obvious turns out to be not so simple after all. Of course, this is assuming that the analysis is done by those of goodwill, not those with an axe to grind. We know that that is the exception, rather than the rule. In politics, no matter what, it’s a crapshoot, I think. No one knows how an individual will behave once the mantle of power is set upon their shoulders; but if someone all of a sudden comes off as an advocate of regulation after years of preaching deregulation, my flags are up. I mean, what have we got now, Free Market Socialism? My sense is, Obama may not really know what he is going to do once he gets into office, and that is scary, but I think McCain knows exactly what he’s going to do once he is in office, it’s just not what he is telling everyone he’s going to do. That’s really scary. I mean, McCain is going around like a born-again Christian, no offense to born-again Christians. It’s just, one minute I believe this, and the next minute, I’ve been saved and now I believe that. That’s ok with me, as long as you are not running for president. As for Sarah Palin, I can’t figure out where she’s coming from, but I really don’t think doing her best Dick Cheney impersonation is helping her cause, because the Republicans may love him, but he’s like the prince of darkness to everyone else. What we need is less time to nominate the candidates, and more time for them to be vetted. That’s why the Republican party likes being the last at bat: less time for the swift-boaters to do their thing.
Steve C.
Steve C.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/
From either the right or the left, that is, in my opinion, the most interesting article I have read this month.
If I were an atheist, I would probably think exactly the same way she does. I should say – if I were a female, East coast, Baby-Boomer, atheist, I would…
Anyway, the most interesting part is about abortion and her well thought out, principled position on why she things abortion should be legal.
She is smart and right to make it not be about “when life begins” and instead, go a different direction. Most people probably are not comfortable with her conclusion, but it does align with her stated world view and I find that admirable where as I find pro-choice Catholics to be… confusing (I am not Catholic).
The bailout is going to need a new thread methinks…
Very very brave and you’re right – why aren’t they talking about this? It defies reason.
I mean the fact that they’re not talking about this defies reason. I find that disturbing when the gloves come off so readily about every other single issue. Why are they avoiding this challenge that this woman is so obviously going to face? Many many people are silently thinking this and I think the Republicans would be smart to address it. I think the fact that the Dems don’t bring it up speaks volumes about what they think. I know I want to know. I am a registered Democrat thinking seriously about voting Republican for the first time in my life. I agree w/ Penelope when she says she doesn’t want to see another national tragedy play out in the White House on national TV. I want to know.
Maureen. I am intrigued as to what would cause a lifelong Dem from seriously considering voting for the Republican ticket, which I think anyone who relates to Democrats would eventually come to regret. I’m guessing it has to do with Hillary, but that’s a guess. If it is, see my earlier comments. I really am curious.
David, I read the Paglia article. She’s very good, very interesting, makes some great points. Thanks for the link. I think she is wrong about Sarah Palin, however. To her credit, she left that possibility open.
Steve C.
As I grow older the “party of choice” that many of us came to align ourselves with in the past seem to have morphed into entities that are less traditionally “party-centric” and more and more less recognizable in a blind-test. In my emerging dotage I have become more sensitive to personalities who appear “messianic” – having seen these types wreck havoc (your reference to Reagan, in my opine, brings up one such past messianic figger) both on national stages, professional venues and in my own personal life. I am wary of these types and view the Democratic ticket as one such.
Obama seems slick, packaged, too sure of himself.
McCain seems, at times, a little needy, a little rough around the edges but most importantly, for me, real.
What bothers me now most about this relates to something you said above:
“…the selection of Palin as a running mate is a manipulation by the Rove strategists to neutralize the women voters of the country…” and as it appears that maybe, just maybe they didn’t think this thing through, reveals an undercurrent of disingenuity that I find extremely unsettling. Like I said, I want to know. I think the Dems might already know and they’re fine with it.
“It takes a child to raze a village.” We’ve seen that in action.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Hi Maureen,
I think you put your finger on it. I am obviously not a Democrat but I feel very differently about Obama than I do Hillary or Bill.
David Axelrod has Obama campaigning specifically ON personality and issues and OFF of ideology and policy. The feeling I get is that Obama has ideology and lots of it, but he does not want us to see it (don’t worry about it!). That is troubling. Whatever you think about McCain and especially Palin, their ideology and world-view pretty accessible.
Honestly Maureen, I am initially surprised to see you say that, but in light of your explanation, it makes sense.
This is easily the most interesting and unpredictable election of my lifetime. The most unusual thing seems to be how severe and frequent the shifts are. Analysts say there could be another 4 or 5 major opinion swings (slams) in the next 40 some odd days.
I am riveted.
Maureen. Well put. I guess I go back to the fear I know versus the unknown fear, but I agree with your suspicion of messianic figures. I’m of the opinion that this is the role that Sarah Palin is trying/expected to play. I also think that McCain attempted that messianic image, and is asking for trouble by playing the war hero POW thing over and over again. I believe that there is more to that story than meets the eye(see accounts of MIA’s families and McCain’s dealings with those folks). I also have a problem with the whole “Top Gun” hero image(Hollywood/Reagan by proxy?). I’m with Michael Moore in that I don’t think there is really anything heroic about napalming or bombing villages from a jet.
I agree with both you and David about the Obama package, and the thing that worries me most is that he was too weak(or something) to bring Hillary on the ticket, which would have been a slam-dunk in my opinion, and would have given me the confidence that we would really have all the Clinton experience working for us.
Hopefully, no one will sit this one out simply because no candidate measures up to all our expectations.
Steve C.
To all those moms here saying they “understand” because they’ve struggled to balance a career and raising children and agree the Sarah Palin should not be VP because of that…
…start cleaning out your own desks. By your own admission, you can’t handle both and the populous should get to make that choice for you. So quit, and quit now.
I just can’t see your point of view. First of all, there are plenty of teenagers that have babies and take care of those babies. I had my oldest daughter 3 weeks before my 17th birthday. I married her dad. We took care of our child. We had help from our parents, sure. But people who have babies in their 20’s and 30’s often receive help from family members. What makes you think the Granddad is going to have to take on the responsibility of caring for the new baby? That is just ridiculous!
And, there are plenty of marriages that work when the husband quits to stay at home with the kids. What difference does it make if it’s the Mom or the Dad? That’s absurd! I know several couples that have arrangements where the mom works and the dad stays at home with the kids. Get real! This is not the 50’s. America does not live like the families on Leave It to Beaver.
So, basically what you are saying is that anyone with the responsibility of a wife and children should not run for public office? Wow! That would certainly narrow the playing field.
Thanks for saying this, Penelope. I’m one of those working moms with a child at the “mild” end of the Autism spectrum (as if there is such a thing), and it is extremely challenging – with or without outside help. My husband and I are in a good place now, but the first three years of our son’s life were rough on our marriage. I really appreciated this post, and I know many other people will, too.
I am the mother of a handicapped young adult, and have been offended by Sarah Palin since her nomination as the Republican candidate for Vice President. In my opinion, she’s been using her handicapped infant to garner votes. As the mother of a handicapped infant, she has almost no experience with having/raising a handicapped child and for her to present herself to the voting public as an “expert” on special needs children is insulting, in the extreme. She has an infant — all infants require 100% care, handicapped or not, regardless of who provides it. She won’t begin to understand what it means to have a handicapped child until her own child reaches an age to begin acquiring skills and abilities and she has to learn to deal with the delays and differences.
However, my offense is more basic than a disagreement over what it means to have a handicapped child. I’m offended that her emphasis is on “handicapped” or “special needs” children, and not on ALL children. Do we really need one more effort to separate and highlight differences? ALL children deserve to be supported and to receive every possible benefit, not just one specific segment. If we fail to support all of our children, regardless of their function levels, then we also fail as a society. –One final comment on John McCain’s references, during the 3rd debate, to Sarah Palin as one of the foremost experts he knows on autism: autism and Down’s Syndrome have absolutely nothing to do with each other; handicaps aren’t interchangeable anymore than people are, and your comments only highlighted your own ignorance!
Amen Ann!! So glad that you said it all! And that last about McCain’s reference to Palin being an expert on autism almost made me puke! Ignorant beyond words!!!
God willing, Obama will win the election and we won’t have to listen to her anymore. From what I understand, she’s not likely to get re-elected in Alaska either!
Anne Aten said it well. And, holy cow!, the additive effect of having McCain confuse autism and Down Syndrome!
To take it to the next level, we need to ask ourselves which of the candidates has advocated for children’s healthcare and early childhood education, as twin priorities. Beefing up these two programs will reach the families with kids with special (healthcare and educational) needs.
Sarah Palin, it was reported this a.m. on MSNBC (Today), got a $150,000.00 wardrobe in which to campaign. And she looks good, in the way that “window dressing” looks good. But even since 9/4, when this blog entry was originally posted, has Sarah added substance to her campaign? What has she said about special healthcare needs and/or special education that would make us believe that she has a specific action plan?
Like her running mate, John McCain, there is a vague “I’ll make it better” (says McCain, referring to loss of retirement funds). Nothing substantial. They are both window dressing, IMO.
CAK
Well said, Penelope. I actually wrote a letter to Mrs. Palin about why I felt she shouldn’t be VP — because her children need her. How would she have the time to mentor a 17-year-old mother and an infant with Down’s Syndrome if she was gallavanting around the United States as Maverick #2? She wouldn’t. I was deeply concerned for her personal welfare and that of her family. On top of that, one of her children was set to go overseas with the military. How could she be an effective VP with all these things on her plate? Sometimes we have to relinquish our goals and just DO THE THING — take care of yourselves and your families and get that in order. That makes for a much better foundation for you to springboard from when you launch your career.
I’m in the midst of starting my own business after being basically told by God himself that I am not meant to work outside of the home. When I was working full time, I couldn’t keep my household together. My husband was and still is working 60 hours a week — I couldn’t expect him to do it. I had a job that stopped when the clock hit 5pm and I had four hours to get the kids from daycare, fix dinner, put his plate in the microwave, clean the house, and put the kids to bed before he got home. Our house was a mess for weeks on end, my kids missed me, I was too tired and cranky for sex; all this measured up to one big realization that I need to either not work at all, or work in a job where I delegate my hours around the needs of my family. Even now, as I go through the planning, I’m giving myself until this October to decide if forming this company will suit my needs. If I don’t have my master household-managing plan in place by then, I never will.
I’m glad she didn’t win, not because I supported Obama, but because there’s a better possibility that her family will make it through this huge mess of crises they have going on right now.
Nobody who has children at home should run for office. Male or female. Their kids need them more than their city/state/country does.
Nobody under 50 should ever run for office. Of any kind. You should have to accomplish something in your life before you make decisions that affect what other people can and can’t do.
There are more qualifications that matter, but these two are the most significant. Imagine how things would be different if there were no such thing as a career politician. Only wise, mature, accomplished elected officials who have learned how life really works and understand the importance of important things.
Speaking of Bill Clinton:
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post.)
_________________
"If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Off the top of my head – it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
Allusions made that “can’t be said” anything about, probably shouldn’t be made at all. Accusations made, with or without basis, still can poison the water and shouldn’t be made if they can’t be defended against.
Well at the least McCain and Palin lost the election so now Mrs. Palin can go back to her own life and take care of her children, along with running the great state of Alaska.