Overheard in the press room
Tuesday September 2, 2008
Categories: Republicans
I'm listening to three young blogger-radio reporters from a lefty Canadian radio program (lots of "aboot" in the air) talk about their day. They're on the other side of the blue curtain here, so I don't know what they look...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Man, I tell you, having a black man and a woman running on presidential tickets this year is summoning up some hideous demons.
The problem isn't their respective race or gender, it's their lack of seasoning. Without any kind of serious public record, there's nothing left to talk about except their candidates themselves, including their race, personality and family.
Obama at least earned his nomination through a campaign, against the Clintons at that. Palin was straight up tokened to sucker in a group of people apparently desperate to be suckered. The shame of it is that she could have been a serious politician in 6-10 years in her own right. Now, at best, she'll be a repeat of Quayle (with the--like it or not--"redneck" baggage the press is dragging out). McCain is eating up the GOP's seedcorn to serve his own selfish ends.
Ideological bigotry.
I have gotten used to the over-the-top ignorant things people say on blogs, but this post really shocked me.
"Trailer trash"? OMG!
I guess I am personally offended too, as a Westerner. We hunt and fish, too, own guns, ride motorcycles and snowmachines, AND are college-educated, patronize the arts, travel and know good wines, and are still married to our first spouses. But the "elites" sneer at us.
What a corruption of a good word: elite. Nothing elite about what's inside their skulls.
It's amazing to me that liberals understand so little about Evangelical Christians. Marty Peretz just today posted this on his blog at The New Republic site (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/02/quot-family-is-out-of-bounds-quot.aspx):
"For all the tut-tutting excitement over a pregnant unmarried daughter of a vice presidential candidate you have only the Republicans and the evangelicals to blame. They have no understanding and no compassion. If men and women are born in sin they, we deserve solidarity and compassion which, as it happens, we have less and less of in our society today."
You see: "They have no understanding and no compassion." No wonder that young "lefty" Canadian you mention was shocked at that Evangelical's response to Bristol Palin's pregnancy.
I've also heard that generalized comment about black women from a black man, recently. To me, it's proof that grace in a woman - no matter what her color - never goes out of style, is never a mistake, and is a highly desirable trait for attracting men.
Palin's got it - the evidence is men's reactions to her. There's no begrudging admiration with the requisite qualifiers one reads in commentary about genuinely trashy but attractive women.
If Palin fits your homey's definition of trailer trash, somebody git me a six pack of Pabst, quick!
Trailer Trash??? Wow! Anchorage snobbery is infecting the world now. For a while now there has been a dichotomy between Wasilla and Anchorage, with the latter referring to the former as "Valley Trash". It was actually a local politician who got one of his private e-mails intercepted and published who started the whole thing. Wasilla-ites responded with humor and pride, taking on the title "Valley Trash" as an honorary title much the same as colonial Americans took on the title "Yankee Doodle" as a symbol of their toughness, determination,
independence and honor. So, if the Palins are "Valley Trash" it speaks to THEIR toughness, determination and independence, not their class.
Rod, this probably isn't a unique viewpoint, and one that the GOP may find itself facing from people who might otherwise vote Republican (i.e.: white upper-middle class professional voters). Ross Douthat raised this issue, which I quote below:
Her daughter's pregnancy, though, raises the idea of sex and reproduction in a very different context - it presents female biology something that's wild and unpredictable and beyond the Palin family's control, and I suspect that's a bad association for a female politician to have.
This is especially the case because in modern America, out-of-control reproduction is something that's associated, to be blunt, with white-trash culture - with Jerry Springer and the trailer park. Sarah Palin has the potential to be perceived and portrayed as a working-class heroine - as an impressive working mother who has both her personal and professional spheres under control. But she and her family also have the potential to be perceived and portrayed as something straight out of reality television: As a sideshow act, rather than as role models for working America. That's the line that her candidacy is walking: We'll know soon which it's going to tip.
Link: http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_palins_baby_problem.php
Douthat wasn't supporting this view, obviously, but he was wise enough to mention that it might have legs. I suspect it will, big-time.
"It's amazing to me that liberals understand so little about Evangelical Christians."
Either that or it's the fact that too many of us have seen how the pregnant daughters of folks who are NOT running as a member of the GOP elite have been treated by "good church-going Christians."
I suspect I'm not the only one who can point to several young girls who found themselves in Bristol's position and did not have the benefit of a politically popular parent to buffer them from being shunned by their church community.
Good to see that you're on the snob-beat as usual, Mark in Houston.
Trash is in the nose of he or she who sniffs it and lots of us would put *you* in the dumpster much quicker than we would Sarah Palin, her husband, or their kids.
Have a nice day.
Until proven otherwise, Palin is just another politician. Has she done anything that does not help to further her political career?
Steve
To move away from the "trash" talk... ;) I noticed this over on Progressive Revival, here at Beliefnet. Seems Mrs. Palin used a line-item veto to cut funding for programs that, among other things, provide shelter and support for pregnant teens. 'Nuff said.
Thanks for pointing that out, Turmarion. I noticed that myself. And I was wondering how that fits in with the stated ideals of supporting young pregnant women and encouraging them to keep their children. Again, it makes me wonder if the real Republican position is that young women who get pregnant should be denied the possibility of abortion, and thus forced to give birth, but should then be denied all forms of public assistance, thus forcing them to give the child away. It's hard for me to see how this would not amount to punishment.
I didn't post about this earlier because my attention was caught by a recent article featured in "National Review" (August 4). In "Lost Generation: Adoption in America has collapsed; here's what to do about it," Kevin D. Williamson complains at some length about how too many young mothers are keeping their children, rather than giving them away to well-to-do white families who want children. His solution? Let unmarried mothers sell their children to the highest bidder. Everybody profits! Yay family values . . . . I'm not making this up--I don't think I would have been able to. But it definitely falls in the category of "Things that make you go hmmmm."
My first thought on hearing all this was definitely not trash, but rather Bobo, Alaska style. Both parents holding down careers, one of them a time consuming high profile one. Dad is a champion snowmobile racer, so I hear. Hunting, fishing. Parents needs are met first, then the kids. Who knows, certainly no one here.
BTW, anyone seen a blog anywhere which is discussing Palin's qualifications other than her kids, fishing and hunting?
Steve
I've been amazed by the amount of vitriol spewed over Gov. Palin's nomination, both before and after, the news of her daughters pregnancy. Bristol Palin is a child who made a poor decision, leave her alone. I heard several pundits on CNN this morning talking about how we shouldn't be talking about her pregnancy, yet it dominates the news waves. I'm an independent and will probably vote for Obama and I just don't understand where this hatred is coming from.
Chris Mills
Turmarion - your dig on Palin is as bogus here as it was on PR. I guess you want all of our elected officials to just increase spending on everything....but then that wouldn't even be enough...
I used to work on Capitol Hill. Inside every piece of legislation is always something that someone can use against another politician, whether they voted for or against the bill. It's because there is so much language in the bill; so many rules, conditions, etc. This may or may not have been the case with Gov Palin's veto....but what do you want? Someone who can't or won't make any hard decisions? Taxpayer money is not in endless supply. Apparently her veto hasn't affected her popularity in Alaska.
Not to nit-pick, but "anthropology students" don't go on "digs." That's "archaeology students."
Anthropology students do field work, living among natives, etc. Archaeologists on "digs" do the same stuff, except that all the people and societies we study are dead.
Okay...I feel a lot better now...schoolmarm switch in "off" position
Whine away, Rufus. That won't make the judgments that people are developing about the Palins go away. And many of the people holding those judgments are otherwise Republican or Republican-leaning folks.
Let's put it this way. To use a Dallas example (since Rod is based in Dallas), how many Highland Park or Hockaday girls get married off at the age of 17 or 18 to high school boys that impregnate them (particularly the boys that like to refer to themselves as "f-in rednecks", to use a phrase from the boyfriend's Myspace page)? None, my friend, and it's certainly not because all those kids are practicing abstinence. That's the way things work among the haves and have-mores, otherwise known as (per George W. Bush) the "base". I can assure you that folks like that are noticing these details, and they aren't impressed. That might be a politically incorrect thing to bring up on a populist blog like this, but that's life in the real world.
Noodle Beach : Turmarion - your dig on Palin is as bogus here as it was on PR. I guess you want all of our elected officials to just increase spending on everything....
Bush has increaased spending on nearly everything--check out the federal deficit. So much for the party of fiscal responsibility.
I might also point out that Alasksa is flush with oil money, so they probably could have helped pregnant teens a little.
Finally, if the government weren't spending like drunken sailors on a war they shouldn't have started to begin with, among other things, and cutting taxes like there's no tomorrow, there might be more funds for programs such as those for pregnant teens.
Maroons.
Must be a light night at the convention. You're kinda quiet for someone who is liveblogging. I guess the Democrats gave you a bit more to talk about than the GOP.
Maroons
Golds.
It is Minnesota, after all. :)
Mark in Houston,
You are the whiner here not me. You are such a sissy and such a bully that, to buck yourself up, you have to spend your time trolling blogs like this that are frequented by people with whom you disagree, where you not only express your disagreement, but engage in juvenile snobbery by which your tar yourself much more badly than those you attempt to smear. We all know whom it is that you spit "down" on. The question is whom it is that you're trying to suck up to. Since the worst of us here are better than you, no one is especially impressed. I do however think that some of us feel sorry for you, present company included. People who take such pains to hurt other people as you frequently do tend also to be people who themselves have been hurt rather badly at some point in their lives. But you ought to be a big-boy about it and not a mean-girl.
Rod: I recognize that I may be pushing the envelope here with regard to derogatory language, but I use such language advisedly, to answer someone who regards other *people* as "trash."
Connoisseurs of political slapstick have their latest reason for submitting to nukYouLar matricide daily the Mother of All Popcorn Tubs, as the Sarah Palin story, via its fractalling sidebars, sustains itself as the proverbial gift that keeps on giving:
aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/fools-russian-where-anglosphere-to-tread/
Mark in Houston,
It amuses me that you defend the "elite" so frequently on this blog. About eight years back before I had lived in Germany and Paris or had completed my Ph.D., I taught at a expensive boarding school and came in direct contact with the children of wealthy professionals. Many of these children were on drugs, had serious emotional issues, had bad attitudes, and engaged in promiscuous sex. When I meet some of their parents I understood why. These were people accustomed to throwing money at every problem that came along in their lives. They didn't spend much time with their children (or stepchildren, many parents were divorced and remarried several times), but they could buy them nice toys and fancy educations.
They could also bail them out of trouble. For example, some ninth grade girls were caught during a school trip on a bus full of students performing oral sex on two boys in the back of the bus. One girl and the boys involved got in trouble. Another did not after her wealthy and well connected grandmother made a hefty donation to the school.
From my experience, the wealthy "elite" of this country often behave like "trailer trash on Jerry Springer" too. They just have the money and connections to smooth things over when they go wrong. I've seen the world of the "elites" first hand. It's not always a pretty place. And for all the silliness that occurs in the world of middle class Evangelicalism, I'd much prefer that world and its values to those of the "elite." Maybe the "elite" won't like Palin because of her family problems, or rather because of the openness of them. But in many cases, I'd wager that their problems, though disguised in one way or the other, are often even worse.
rr
Anthropology students do field work, living among natives, etc. Archaeologists on "digs" do the same stuff, except that all the people and societies we study are dead.
What about paleo-anthropologists?
Um, I know that this is one of those ideas that "decent people" all support, but why is the government involved in supporting unwed mothers? I mean, a little help to keep people from being homeless and hungry, I can see. And I'm not saying that society shouldn't help people who find themselves in tough circumstances. I just don't see why it's the government doing it. My sister got pregnant years ago while single and for the most part, it was churches and family that helped her get on her feet. She did get help with health care and welfare for a couple of months after having her son, but it was pretty minor compared to what churches especially did for her. I don't think that cutting government funding to help pregnant teens indicates at all an unwillingness to help these girls. I think it indicates and unwillingness to let people pretend to help them by using tax dollars to support bureaucracies that treat people like scum and do little but hold people hostage to all sort of rules and regulations.
Really, I think that dependence on the government for support in situations like these is probably why single parenthood is so devastating. We need families, communities and religious organizations coming around these girls to offer support, safety nets, mentoring and assistance. But that isn't happening, in part because the work has been parceled off to the most impersonal, inefficient entity around - the government. And with only the government to count on and no moral guidance or life changing relationships, many single mothers find themselves farther and father down the hole with their kids worse and worse off - no matter how much money the government spends. So, good for Gov. Palin for cutting funding for something that the government just doesn't have any business of ability to do.
Gee, I didn't know we had such sensitive souls here. I guess quoting a few passages from a Palin-supporting conservative like Douthat, who is savvy enough to know what Palin is up against and is willing to speak out without worrying about being chided for conservative political incorrectness, gives some people the vapors.
In this case, I'm not defending the elite. (For that matter, in most cases I'm not defending the elite so much as I am criticizing dime-store populism and pointing out some inconvenient truths.) I'm simply pointing out what a lot of upper-middle class people (whether or not you want to call them an elite is your choice) are saying and will say about the Palins. All I've seen so far is commentary about what an awful person I must be, especially compared to a totally awesome internet ubermensch like Rufus Thomas, but no one has been able to shoot down the basic message, because facts are stubborn things.
RR, I'll give you credit for responding in an intelligent manner on the topic, but basically what you are saying is that rich people have problems too. That's obviously true. The issue is how those problems are perceived by others and how they manifest themselves in public, and I can tell you, shotgun weddings involving 17 year olds are seen as a type of cultural marker among many people that will make them look negatively at the Palins that, for example, a stint in a good rehab facility won't, particularly if they are coupled with other markers that may come out over time. I can bet you that GOP wise men are talking about and are concerned with this right now, in that they know that the GOP cannot afford to lose the suburban and urban professional women / affluent housewife types (just ask Clayton Williams about that -- you can google the name), and the GOP-leaning Junior Leaguers are exactly the type who are likely to backlash against this sort of thing.
Ann writes-"I have gotten used to the over-the-top ignorant things people say on blogs... We (Westerners)hunt and fish, ...and are still married to our first spouses."
A quick google shows that Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Idaho Arizona, New Mexico and Utah all have higher than the national average divorce rate.
One of the lowest divorce rates: good ol' elite, ivy, gay marriage loving Massachusetts.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html
Anecdotal evidence:
McCain, second wife. Reagan, two wives. Obama, only one.
Thank you for your ignorant blog comment.
Mark in Houston,
Bigotry does not consist of "facts," nor of "inconvenient truths," so the fever-dreams you peddle require no "shooting down."
The place that needs help is your heart, not other people's heads.
That said, I'm glad you think I'm "totally awesome."
Sorry that I can't return the favor by feeling the same about you.
Shorter Rufus Thomas: Wah!
So what's controversial? The demographic center of gravity of GOP has migrated from the country club & industrial park, to the trailer park, and they've got the perfect ticket: bada** troublemaker John, and young gramdma Sarah. Get 'em matching tatoos, and they'll take the majority.
Watching the RNC there is no diversity. It still looked like the good old boys club and their wives and I mean Old!. I think Sarah fits right in she's a good old girl! or will soon be, just because were women doesn't mean we agree. Now the Republicans are wearing pins that say they support unwed mothers! talk about Moral flip flopping. America is changing and Republicans are missing the boat! they took the low road. while Obama/Biden come off as better prepared, more classy, intelligent, and caring of the issue's facing the American People. The RNC has turned this election into a Jerry springer show special! and then claim country first?
Buckie Fusher: Ann writes-"I have gotten used to the over-the-top ignorant things people say on blogs... We (Westerners)hunt and fish, ...and are still married to our first spouses."
A quick google shows that Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Idaho Arizona, New Mexico and Utah all have higher than the national average divorce rate.
Then you call it an ignorant comment. You deliberately distorted it when you quoted. I said "I guess I am personally offended too, as a Westerner." I did not say ALL Westerners did any of those things, but many of us do, specifically my family and circle of friends.
No comment on reading skills or honesty.
That was me, of course. And I put the ital/quote in the wrong place because I was annoyed. Should have been after "rate". Oh, well.
The Rocky Mountain area is largely irreligious while the South is Evangelical Protestant. Although not very religious Massachusetts is still largely Catholic and the Catholic cultural legacy might remain on the seriousness of marriage.
Presbyterians and Lutherans also have low rates of divorce. Hence the "Lutheran states" of the Northern Plains, like the Dakotas and Minnesota, have low divorce rates. There are cases that also go against pattern. South Carolina's divorce rate, according to the link, was consistently equal to or less than Vermont. The link shows that from 2000 to 2005 South Carolina's divorce rate was lower than Vermont's.
To me it is unfortunate that conservative Christianity in this country is represented by the more anti-intellectual element of Protestantism, but I admit that's a snobbish thing to say.
Watcher-You're correct that marriage rates MIGHT offset set things, might. I didn't deliberately leave it out; I will admit I oversimplified (I'm a physicist, its standard operating principle). But divorce rate is relevant.
A durable marriage would by definition be one that doesn't end in divorce, wouldn't it? Answering your own question (For each married couple, how many marry for life?) I would answer those that don't divorce. How can you say the divorce rate is mostly immaterial?
Ann- My reading skills are fine. Your writing skills need work. You wrote "I guess I am personally offended too, as a Westerner. We hunt and fish..." You mention yourself, and a group to which you belong, then you say "we". The only logical inference is that we is referring to the aforementioned group (westerners)of which you just said you were a part. No where in your original post have you mentioned your family and circle of friends.
"A durable marriage would by definition be one that doesn't end in divorce, wouldn't it?" BF
I think what Watcher means, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is the percent of the population in a durable marriage. This can theoretically be high even in a society with a high divorce rate. How?
Let's say 75% of the people marry one person for life; 20% of the people marry twice per life; and 5% of the people marry three or more times per life. This could theoretically result in a moderately high divorce rate despite the fact a high majority are in durable marriages. It's sort-of about the difference between the mean and the mode. The mode, the most common result, in these states could be durable marriages. However the median could be common divorce because those who do divorce do so often.
Personally I'm not really sure I'm convinced by this argument. You have to believe a minority of people are each having multiple divorces while the rest rarely divorce at all. Or at least that a minority have such a high number of divorces it skews everything. That said something like this might be true in the case of Nevada as some people do seem to go to Nevada for whirlwind marriage-divorce events.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_per_of_men_who_nev_mar-percent-men-who-never-married
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_per_of_wom_who_nev_mar-percent-women-who-never-married
Those two give the percent of men and women who never married in US states. Massachusetts is high on both lists. So hard to get divorced if you never marry. That said Alaska is high too and high in the divorce rate. (I'm thinking alcohol and the odd seasons may possibly be involved with Alaska. It might be a bit of a bipolar life for some)
States with below average rates of both divorce and "never marrieds" are
South Carolina
South Dakota
Kansas
Vermont
Nebraska
Maine
States with above average rates of divorce and "never marrieds."
Alaska
New Mexico
Colorado
Washington
(Nevada has a rate of never-married men well above average, but a well-below average rate of never-married women)
Shorter Mark in Houston: "Me feel bad. Me hit you."
Thomas brought up the statistics I was interested in. All this talk about Mass having a low divorce rate to mean meant that they probably just have lost of people living together who are just as likely to break up and move on as the divorce rates suggest others are doing in southern states. I guess the question then is why do people get married in high-divorce rate states? Probably culture as well as a good dose of optimism "this is THE ONE".
It seems like these are the people we should be looking to for the secret to a happily married life. Which some research also says leads to better health and a longer life......
States with below average rates of both divorce and "never marrieds" are
South Carolina
South Dakota
Kansas
Vermont
Nebraska
Maine
Still at it, eh, Rufus? How sad. Especially if that's the best you can come up with after sleeping on it.
Shorter Mark in Houston Part II: "Me *still* feel bad. Me hit you *again.*"
Shorter Mark in Houston Parts III, Parts IV, etc: repeat Shorter Mark in Houston Part II ad infinitum.
A problem is I didn't do a detailed statistical comparison of "people who've been married" versus divorce rate. I'd hope to find something that just said "divorces per 100 marriage" in different states, but I didn't find that.
I considered doing a more thorough analysis, but I figured this would take too long and might seem a bit obsessive. So I just looked for below average in both measures and above average in both, but I actually see now this is too crude. The "never-married" rate doesn't vary as greatly as the divorce rate.
Therefore, even though it undercuts my point, doing something like that would again place Massachusetts fairly well. The Dakotas, Nebraska, and Iowa would also come out good.
I'm listening to three young blogger-radio reporters from a lefty Canadian radio program (lots of "aboot" in the air) talk about their day.
Good heavens, Rod! You listened to this stuff on purpose? You really take your reporting duties seriously.
First, the phrase "a lefty Canadian radio program" is redundant. Of course it's lefty - if it weren't, it wouldn't make it on the air.
Second, the pronunciation of about: it's actually closer to a-boat then a-boot. And it's hard to shake off - my aunt in California (lived there since 1980) still says "a-boat". And my favourite - "oat-fit".
Thomas R-
You put more time and effort into it than I was willing to. I also couldn't find divorce per marriage rate, although it could be calculated. that, of course, but wouldn't account for lots of second & third marriages, as you said.
Still, it is frequently claimed by people like Ann that liberal-elite states are worse than good wholesome red states when it comes to marriage. I've yet to see and data to back that up, while much I have seen points in the other direction.
Bristol Palin is a child who made a poor decision, leave her alone.
You know, I would have more sympathy for the argument that policians' children should be left alone, or should be out of bounds, if the politicians themselves kept their children out of bounds -- no using your children as political props, no trotting them up on stage to show what a great parent you are, etc.
If politicians' children shouldn't be used as a target by their opponents, then the policians shouldn't be allowed to exploit their children, either. If the children are out of bounds, politically, they should be out of bounds for everyone, including their parents.
Sarah Palin, like most other politicians of both parties, brought her family out onstage to show off what a great mother she is, as part of her political appeal and as part of the argument for her ability.. Part of the argument for her accomplishments and qualifications is that she has been able to combine motherhood with all these other things she's done. Well, if she wants to make her motherhood part of the package of her qualifications, then her opponents have the right to examine her "mothering" abilities more closely, and that includes a close look at her family and its problems.
As they might say on Law and Order, she can't claim that this issue is off-limits, because she opened the door.
"Sarah Palin, like most other politicians of both parties, brought her family out onstage to show off what a great mother she is, as part of her political appeal and as part of the argument for her ability. Part of the argument for her accomplishments and qualifications is that she has been able to combine motherhood with all these other things she's done. Well, if she wants to make her motherhood part of the package of her qualifications, then her opponents have the right to examine her "mothering" abilities more closely, and that includes a close look at her family and its problems."
Bullshit. There is no other word for it. Pure bullshit. Every time a pol takes a family photo or mentions their family on the stump they are fair game for every hack fronting for a Daily Kos or Freeper rumor?
So, Hillary calling herself a "proud mother" lets the right open a can of scurrilous nonsense on her and Chelsea? Obama invoking his daughters in defense of the right to an abortion opens yet another door? Nancy Pelosi's touting of her status as a grandmother enables a free fire zone? The answer for each, of course, is "no." If you have a shred of decency.
But Palin's one of "them," so decency can fly out the window, right? Sickening as hell.
@ David J. White 2:39 PM
My problem with your P.O.V. is that you treat minor children like non-humans. This is not an episode of Law and Order, and Bristol is not an issue for cross examination. She's a person in her own right and a minor at that. As a society our consideration needs to be for the child first.
Just because you believe someone has done something wrong doesn't make it okay to indulge in it yourself. I get the sense that a lot of people are actively indulging their own sexually perverse natures and REALLY can't keep their eyes, thoughts, and words off of a young girl's uterus.
By your logic, it's perfectly permissible for you to satisfy your personal taste for kiddie porn as long as the person who sells you the child is a legal guardian. After all - they're opening the door, right?
Um, huh? Where did kiddie porn get into this? You must be giving us a window into your own psyche, pfish, if this led you to think of kiddie porn. Kiddie porn is illegal; the wishes of the child's guardian are irrelevant.
The "opening the door" bit is a reference to testimony in court. For example, you can't claim that your client's character is off-limits when it comes to negative character testimony that would hurt your client, but then claim that you can use positive character testimony that would help your client. Either character is relevant, or it's not. If it is, the ALL of it is.
If Sarah Palin's family is relevant -- and she claimed it was, by touting "motherhood" as one of her qualifications for the job and parading her family onstage -- she can't then turn around and cry "foul" when people take a closer look at her family and draw negative conclusions about her performance as a mother.
***
Bullshit yourself, Dale. Yes, if Hillary calls herself a "proud mother" that opens the door to any investigation of her family and her abilities as a mother. Yes, if Pelosi touts herself as a grandmother, we have a right to look into the state of her family. (But I must have missed the part where Obama invoked his daughters as a defense of abortion. If he did, however, then that claim deserves scrutiny as well.)
If you make your family the public's business, then it ALL becomes the public's business. John Edwards' adultery became the public's business because he had paraded his family in front of the nation and had portrayed himself as a dutiful family man. Yes, if Nancy Pelosi touts herself as a grandmother, she is opening the door to any investigation of her family.
If you don't want your children to be political cannon fodder, keep them out of sight. Actually, the Clintons did a good job of that for awhile. In 1992, the Clintons kept Chelsea so far out of sight for such a long time during the primaries that many voters actually thought they were childless.
Now, sleazy rumormongering is still sleazy rumormongering, and it is indefensible because it is sleazy and baseless. But to claim that people should lay off your kids while you yourself are exploiting your kids for political gain ... sorry, I just don't buy it.
As a purely legal matter, not every offhand reference opens the door. Which is what "proud mother" and "don't want my daughters punished with a baby" are. Not only is no one opening the door, no one has so much as started to head for it. For you, it's battering ram time and open season.
That's nothing short of morally insane, Mr. White. At the same time, you are disturbed by sleazy rumormongering. Why? The difference between your approach and the sleazeballs' is one of degree, not kind. It certainly creates the atmosphere where sleazy behavior thrives.
Mr. White,
From a purely moral, decent perspective, should we be free to inspect for dirt and judgement the private lives of families and particularly minor children? Would you be comfortable if the local paper decided to subject your family to this sort of scrutiny? Of course not. Now if you explicitly offered to open your family up to this sort of scrutiny, including close examination of your minor children who may not fully understand or have the judgement needed to agree to this level of scrutiny, would that make the heretofore off-limits behavior acceptable? No. Some things are just wrong, even someone's parents are foolish enough to agree to it.
Put another way, if I told my child's teacher that it was OK to call my child "ugly" rather than by name and slap them across the face to get their attention, would that teacher be able to get away with actually doing it? Certainly not! A parent's foolishness does not give the rest of us license to treat their children in ways that are unacceptable.
Of course in the case of Sarah Palin and other politicians, we're rarely even offered an explicit go-ahead to subject their families to this crap. If we take simple introductions and references to one's parenting or children as permission to engage in behavior which would be unacceptable even if a clear go-ahead were given, then we are sick, terrible people.
@ Dale:
"Kiddie porn is illegal; the wishes of the child's guardian are irrelevant."
Exactly. And your obsession with the reproductive organs of a minor child is indecent. And borderline pornographic.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.