Women who like Palin are idiots

Well since she doesn't support equal pay for women or reproductive rights, or universal healthcare, or initiatives to combat climate change...all things that should be important to women...I'd say she's a bit of a step back for us.

They're responding to him for the same vague but deeply felt reasons that Palin's people identify with her.

Maybe some, but most are responding to his obvious intelligence, compassion (the "community organizer" thing that Palin so grotesquely and ignorantly mocked), ability to inspire, and the fact that he is a self-made man.

McCain - although one of two Republicans (along with Kemp) I would have once considered voting for, has revealed himself to be simply another Bushlike entitled spoiled brat and extreme panderer.

But at least he's paid his dues in some form. Palin? A wanna-be book banner, a bully, a liar (Bridge to Nowhere, eBay jet story), anti-environmental and corrupt. She's probably worse than either him or Bush. She has not earned the chance to be vice president on any level, and McCain insulted the whole country by nominating her, and she insulted it by accepting the nomination.

Once more, Rod, you are letting yourself be blinded by your own wishful thinking. I can understand why, for some people, abortion would be "the" issue. I don't think it should be, but it's a standpoint I can respect. But don't delude yourself that, just because she agrees with you on that one issue, she's a great human being or would be a great vp. You deluded yourself once with Bush and have had the integrity to admit that publicly. This is a similar mistake.

I'm not sure what climate change has to do with women's rights. Human rights maybe, but what makes it a specific woman's concern? (Healthcare I can see because of single mothers and the elderly being disproportionately female)

I think a woman supporting or opposing Palin maybe stupid, it depends on her reasoning for either. If a woman dislikes her say because "I don't like beauty pageant contestants and she reminds me of that girl who snubbed me in High School" than that's stupid. Likewise if they like her because she has five kids and goes hunting that's also stupid.

The fact that so far so much of the approval given to Palin has been based on superficial reasons--her appearance and her hobbies have been very popular topics--IS kind of humiliating. She has not earned this position through work and merit. She's like a token and throwback. Maybe she will show us differently, but I can totally understand the discomfort to feminists with the manner in which Palin has been elevated and received.

I don't think women who "like" her are idiots. But if women actually cast a vote for McCain because they think they "like" Sarah Palin...well, I can't say that's "idiotic" either, just woefully ignorant on the issues.

Hillary Rettig you may be right. She might be many of the bad things you say, but I liked her more in April than now so I wouldn't say it's just McCain's spin machine.

She did go against corrupt politicians who actually committed crimes. You can choose to ignore that, but even her opponents in Alaska agree it happened. It's on record. She did manage to be highly popular in a state that had reason to be annoyed by Republicans. (And a state that is not, in fact, very religious. See Pew Research Center) She did choose not to abort a special-needs child even though, considering her secretiveness, she probably could've gotten away with it.

These things are what I saw then. What I see now is many more negatives, but her political career is not all black or white. I mean who's is? The attempts of either side to paint her as saint or monster are becoming increasingly weird and annoying.

I think American women have already bottomed-out on humiliation after being compared to horses, mooses, and other such ungulates the past two weeks by their (frequently-male) "betters" in the media, in the Democratic party, and among other such dispensers of "wisdom" from on high -- that is if they really were such shrinking violets or such vapor-laden Victorian maidens and matrons that they could be hurt very much by the efforts of Judith Warner and her ilk to do them harm.

As the father of a daughter, I can say unequivocally that I would rather my little girl grow up to be like Sarah Palin and to live in Sara Palin's world than to grow up to be like Judith Warner and to live in Judith Warner's world.

I take comfort from the fact -- for which I thank the Lord every night -- that the former is more likely to happen than what Barbara Streisand would wish ... and that the more Streisand wishes it, the less it is likely to be so.

Ms Palin attended, what, 5 or 6 colleges in 5 or 6 years, and majored in journalism? Do you really wonder why people who had normal, successful college careers and majored in something challenging, have a hard time taking her (and her fawning supporters) seriously?

Actually, Warner said Republicans believe women who like Palin are idiots. It's an important difference.

There is something condescending to your argument that victimization and the sense Palin "is touchable" is enough to convince women they should support Palin. In essence, you are saying they aren't really smart enough to parse policy, they aren't rational enough to make intellectual decisions. Instead, those decisions are all based on emotive, victim-centered feelings.

Warner thinks women are smarter than that. She critiques male conservative pundits who think women are stupid and therefore only care about being able to "relate" to a candidate.

But don't delude yourself that, just because she agrees with you on that one issue, she's a great human being or would be a great vp.

Or that she would actually be able to do something to end abortion.

This is why I have decided that, although I am opposed to abortion, I don't feel any obligation to vote for candidates who talk a good game but who have shown again and again that they are unable, or unwilling, actually to do anything about it.

Even if you take the "but remember who appoints the judges!" argument, the Supreme Court has shown no serious inclination to overturn Roe v. Wade; and even if they did, that would just move the matter back to the states, most of which would probably enact abortion laws as least as permissive as Roe v. Wade is now.

So, again, I have decided that the fact that a candidate *talks* a good game on abortion doesn't necessarily obligate me to vote for him or her.

***

(the "community organizer" thing that Palin so grotesquely and ignorantly mocked)

Once again, here is what she actually said:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

Sound like mockery to me.

But, then, there's been enough mockery to go around, on both sides, so I think it's pretty much a wash.

***

As the father of a daughter, I can say unequivocally that I would rather my little girl grow up to be like Sarah Palin and to live in Sara Palin's world than to grow up to be like Judith Warner and to live in Judith Warner's world.

I don't mind if girls grow up to be like Sarah Palin and live in Sarah Palin's world as long as they *stay* there and don't bother the rest of us.

As for me, I would prefer that a daughter of mine grow up to have some intellectual curiosity and have an original thought once in awhile.

Well, I just read the article and . . . Wow. All those liberals who feel like they keep getting set up on this Palin thing, need to go back and take another look. That's just an amazing article. Subordinate? Not competent? People are just impressed that she can speak? Dropping g's? Using her daughter's pregnancy for political purposes and dragging her "delicate" son out under kleig lights night after night?

Yes, obviously all this talk about elitist, disrespectful, condescending liberals is just being manufactured by right wing spin doctors. It's not that the left has come unhinged; it's just that Karl Rove has taken over the brains of people like Judith Warner and is making them say outrageous, insulting things to make it LOOK like the left has lost its marbles!

I seriously suggest that every liberal who thinks this whole Palin thing is manufactured by right wing spin try to go back and read Judith Warner's article from the perspective of the average American who can in some way relate to Mrs. Palin. If you can't see how outrageous and insulting it is, then you may just want to keep your mouth shut because you're one of those people who is just making things worse for your side.

I can't wait until November 5 so I can watch all the pompous and apoplectic anti-Palin liberal guttersnipes self-immolate or stroke out when the headlines read: "It's McCain-Palin!" It'll be more fun than drying a poodle in the microwave.

Well, that's you. I don't look forward to it at all. If Republicans lose, we won't experience it as crushing. We've had the White House for eight years, and many of us, while not wishing for a Democratic victory, believe that the GOP deserves to lose (that's not to say we won't vote Republican, but still).

But if the Democrats still can't win this year, with a good candidate and a record level of public disgust with the Republicans and the political system, then many will freak out. It may well get ugly.

I have been dismayed over the past week by the Palin coverage in the media as well as on the blogosphere (whether right or left in either case). People, we are not supposed to be voting for McCain or Obama based on whether we are doing so to spite Sarah Palin (and those who identify with her) or to spite Judith Warner (and those who identify with her). This is identity politics at its worst. In January, we are not going to wake up in "Sarah Palin's world" or "Judith Warner's world". We're going to wake up in the real world of China, Russia, Pakistan, oil, education, energy, etc.

I am waiting to see whether Governor Palin will speak with common sense and substance about this larger world in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, I have a deep fear that she is a female George W. Bush (except that she happens to be completely genuine in her background and lifestyle).

The liberals always accuse conservatives of fighting a "culture war", using wedge issues to divide Americans - yet let's look at what the Palin nomination has revealed:

They left attacked Palin with smears about her family, first saying that her son was actually her grandson, then attacking her parenting skills and judgment when it was revealed that her daughter became pregnant. She has also been attacked over her decision to carry her son to term even though she knew he would have Down syndrome, and she was attacked for choosing to accept the nomination when she has young children at home. Does anyone remember the right attacking Obama for running for office when he had young children at home?

The left attacks Palin for her beliefs about abortion, abstinence, creation, etc... even though they are not campaigning on any of those issues and there is no evidence she ever attempted to make her beliefs on these issues public policy.

The left is now attacking her based on what her church teaches and how it worships - even though no one can point to any teaching that would be considered racist, anti-American or hateful.

The main attacks against her all seem to be on issues unrelated to her performance in office or her fitness for the vice-presidency - and they say the right is stoking the fires of the culture wars?

If you want to question her on her policy positions, fine. Ask her about economics, energy, the war, immigration, etc. Those are all valid areas of inquiry and relevant to the election. But the rest of these are just as disgusting and despicable as those who claim Obama is really a Muslim or would try to attack him because he did drugs as a kid - it is not relevant to the election, and is just an attempt to personally smear the candidate for political gain.

I've never understood how people think they can convince other people of something by telling them that they're stupid, while they're some kind of enlightened genius.

Judith Warner could have made her points about economics and the culture wars without demeaning anyone, at the same time that she claimed that women were being demeaned.

I simply conclude that she doesn't want to convince anyone of anything, but to elicit a large number of responses. I guess that's her job.

If you feel that others are idiots, they usually return the favor.

The decent way to counter Gov. Palin would be to listen to what she says, and rationally and calmly argue against it, not to get hysterical while claiming to be the embodiment of reason.

The left attacks Palin for her beliefs about abortion, abstinence, creation, etc... even though they are not campaigning on any of those issues and there is no evidence she ever attempted to make her beliefs on these issues public policy.

But you are ignoring the political reality that Palin was a gift to the social conservative movement that cares primarily about abortion and gay marriage. People like Rod aren't genuflecting because they care about her environmental policy or alleged reformist agenda. They are genuflecting because she's a far-right social conservative that even James Dobson can love.

Over the past week or so, there has been much tut-tutting and concerned hand-wringing over the re-emergence of the Culture Wars. We've done such a fabulous job of maintaining the civilized facade of social delicacy, and it is just so uncouth for people to actually say what they think.

Even though I think Judith Warner is wrong, I'm exceedingly grateful that she's willing to speak her mind. I want her and everybody else to be transparent, to stop hiding behind manners and be honest.

Here's Juan Cole from Salon: "...the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

I love it. I couldn't disagree more with Cole, but thank God that the cat is out of the bag and Pandora's Box is open. Clearing the air and honestly understanding what we think of each other...the truth shall set us free.

Keep it comin' everybody, keep it comin'. This is better than a ringside seat at Hearns-Hagler. No Marquis de Queensbury rules, the blows energized by rage, and the best of all...no knock-outs or TKOs. An eternal cage match.

As Messala said: "It doesn't stop Judah, it doesn't stop. The race goes on..."

"I ask that every member of the Religious Right try to understand how outrageous and insulting it is to be told for decades that you are going to hell if you don't live like the Religious Right says you should live, and then being expected not to notice when the RR candidate comes along with an unwed pregnant daughter."

homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, Homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist,homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist,homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, sexist, intolerant bigot, Jesus Land, fundamentalist.

That's all we ever heard about us from you.

Culture war is all anyone has talked about since she was revealed (with the exception of a small side order of oil and change). If she was picked to push anything apart from culture war she has been a failure thus far.

rlb1961,

Reports about who Palin is are important. We know a lot about the other candidates. The electorate deserves to know all it can about her because we have to decide whether to vote for her or not.

The MSM is not attacking Palin, they're introducing her to us. It's not a conspiracy. It's the media doing their job, very basic and simple.

The fact that columnists are spinning Palin is par for the course. Check out Realclearpolitics.com every day and you'll see the headlines from the day's relevant political columns and op-eds. It's been very interesting just to look at that daily because you can see the spin war going on from both sides. The usual suspects line up for and against. This is what they do. I wish it were different but it isn't and it's a bipartisan problem.

"Questionable on human rights."

Translation: she should have terminated Trig in the womb.

"She's inexperienced."

Translation: no community organizer training.

"She tried to ban books."

Translation: she is against the "fairness" doctrine.

10:49 AM,

For what it is worth, I get paid for my "intellectual curiosity" and my "original thinking."

I teach at one of the most well-regarded universities in the world and present my academic work in well-regarded venues all around the world with regularity.

I also have had the experience that you yourself seem not have had of living in and prospering in both "red" and "blue" parts of the country -- as well as in other countries altogether.

So I suspect that I am a better-qualified parent for my own daughter than you would be -- not only so far as her intellectual development goes, but also (needless to say) her moral education.

I prefer Sarah Palin to Judith Warner of Barbara Streisand as a role-model for my daughter not only because she is a person of superior moral fibre, but also because she seems to be more intelligent and better-educated as well, more cosmopolitan and less provincial, less parochial in her view of the world.

In short, Sarah Palin knows what Judith Warner knows and what Barbara Streisand knows (except when it comes to singing), while Judith Warner does not know and Barbara Streisand does not know what Sarah Palin knows -- which is why Sarah Palin may well be our President one day, while Judith Warner will continue to be at best a contributor of ink to sheets of paper used as blotters to house-break puppies, while Barbara Streisand will continue to be someone who once excelled -- relatively speaking -- in a musical form that was outmoded even long ago when Streisand had her day.

"Feminists" like Warner are one reason that I never use the appellation "Ms." I always identify as "Mrs."

I'm sorry she doesn't like Sarah Palin, but I'll make up my own mind about Palin, thank you. Warner doesn't speak for me.

I can't stand Palin, but if McCain wins I will celebrate because once again it will send a message to the dippy Eurotrash to keep their faces out of our elections.

And yes, it will be fun to watch Keith Olbermann's head explode and Chris Matthews have a stroke. And when the party is over it will be open season on Mrs. Moosebreath and her ever-increasingly weird family.

So I'm rooting for them to win. It will be a lot more fun than dealing with a President Gas Bag and Mr. Boring.

Francis,

Correct. Liberals can be judgmental also. The differences are:

1) We live in a country that is founded on the principle of freedom. That means that people shouldn't be using the government to try to control who people are and what they believe. Therefore, tolerance is a virtue, in the context of a free society. The fact that Liberals accuse the Religious Right of intolerance is because the Religious Right goes against the principle of freedom and wants to use the power of the government to control who people are and what they believe.

2) Liberals aren't condemning anyone to Hell for ever.

I'm a conservative Christian and I understand that Liberals can be unfriendly toward us. However, taking seriously my duty to look at myself and take responsibility for my own actions, I can't help notice that the Religious Right has turned a lot of people away and made a bad name for Christ with their browbeating.

The liberals always accuse conservatives of fighting a "culture war", using wedge issues to divide Americans - yet let's look at what the Palin nomination has revealed:

They left attacked Palin with smears about her family, first saying that her son was actually her grandson, then attacking her parenting skills and judgment when it was revealed that her daughter became pregnant. She has also been attacked over her decision to carry her son to term even though she knew he would have Down syndrome, and she was attacked for choosing to accept the nomination when she has young children at home. Does anyone remember the right attacking Obama for running for office when he had young children at home?

The left attacks Palin for her beliefs about abortion, abstinence, creation, etc... even though they are not campaigning on any of those issues and there is no evidence she ever attempted to make her beliefs on these issues public policy.

The left is now attacking her based on what her church teaches and how it worships - even though no one can point to any teaching that would be considered racist, anti-American or hateful.

The main attacks against her all seem to be on issues unrelated to her performance in office or her fitness for the vice-presidency - and they say the right is stoking the fires of the culture wars?

If you want to question her on her policy positions, fine. Ask her about economics, energy, the war, immigration, etc. Those are all valid areas of inquiry and relevant to the election. But the rest of these are just as disgusting and despicable as those who claim Obama is really a Muslim or would try to attack him because he did drugs as a kid - it is not relevant to the election, and is just an attempt to personally smear the candidate for political gain.

The liberals always accuse conservatives of fighting a "culture war", using wedge issues to divide Americans - yet let's look at what the Palin nomination has revealed:

They left attacked Palin with smears about her family, first saying that her son was actually her grandson, then attacking her parenting skills and judgment when it was revealed that her daughter became pregnant. She has also been attacked over her decision to carry her son to term even though she knew he would have Down syndrome, and she was attacked for choosing to accept the nomination when she has young children at home. Does anyone remember the right attacking Obama for running for office when he had young children at home?

The left attacks Palin for her beliefs about abortion, abstinence, creation, etc... even though they are not campaigning on any of those issues and there is no evidence she ever attempted to make her beliefs on these issues public policy.

The left is now attacking her based on what her church teaches and how it worships - even though no one can point to any teaching that would be considered racist, anti-American or hateful.

The main attacks against her all seem to be on issues unrelated to her performance in office or her fitness for the vice-presidency - and they say the right is stoking the fires of the culture wars?

If you want to question her on her policy positions, fine. Ask her about economics, energy, the war, immigration, etc. Those are all valid areas of inquiry and relevant to the election. But the rest of these are just as disgusting and despicable as those who claim Obama is really a Muslim or would try to attack him because he did drugs as a kid - it is not relevant to the election, and is just an attempt to personally smear the candidate for political gain.

Here's a breakdown analysis of Judith Warner's frankly oligarchic observations:

#1 - "It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate this past week."

TRANSLATION FROM ME: Just simply the nomination of Sarah Palin should 'nauseate' every sophisticated woman. Don't you get it, you ignorant saps?

#1b - "It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech."

TRANSLATION FROM ME: Because honestly, how could any sophisticated, educated person think highly of this woman?

#2 - "Could there be a more thoroughgoing humiliation for America's women?"

NOTE FROM ME: Oh I get it. Sarah Palin 'humiliates' American women by her very presence. So glad we have "The New York Times" to clear this up for us.

#3 - "Palin sounded, at times, like she was speaking a foreign language as she gave voice to the beautifully crafted words that had been prepared for her on Wednesday night."

NOTE FROM ME: She seems to speak a 'foreign language' only if you're accustomed to spending summers in the Hamptons, and consider a walk in the country to be a stroll through Central Park. And note that Warner continues the left-wing meme of making sure we all know that Palin has a speech writer. Duh. Every politician has a speech writer. Barack Obama has a speech writer, but the poor sap never gets any credit because the media won't write about him, and his boss ungraciously takes all the praise.

#4 - Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so "real"?

NOTE FROM ME: Palin seems 'fake' only to those who are from a fake place, like, say, Manhattan -- one of the most artificial communities on the planet (aside from, say, Beverly Hills). And note that because the Palins gracefully revealed their daughter's pregnancy because of relentless media prying, they're now "shamelessly" instrumentalizing her "for political purposes." In other words, Warner seems to be trying to make readers forget that it was the media and the American Left that in fact "shamelessly" instrumentalized the Palin family "for political purposes."

#5 - "Real people, the kind of people who will like and identify with Palin, they clearly believe, are smart, but not too smart, and don't talk too well, dropping their "g"s, for example"

NOTE FROM ME: So if you speak using any sort of regional colloquialism (other than the de rigeur tinny tones of New England) and choose not to speak in brassy 'Nouw Yawk' brays that sound like a donkey, well, you're just "not too smart."

#6 - "If she isn't, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong."

NOTE FROM ME: This may be one of the more unintentionally revealing statements that Warner has written in this screed. Because Palin drops her g's, because she breast-pumps, and because she isn't suitably elitist, "something is seriously wrong" (one assumes this includes her ability to hunt, her pro-life stance and her Christian faith as well). Huh. Well.

#7 - "If she doesn't elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing."

NOTE FROM ME: And this is one of the most anti-democratic and oligarchic observations I've read yet this year. Presidents should "inspire awe"? No, Miss Warner, we live in a democratic republic. We do not want kings or queens. This is why the American Revolution took place. This is precisely why George Washington first established the precedent of being referred to as "Mr. President" instead of "Your Excellency" or "Your Highness" as some of his supporters had wanted. We want people in office who represent us, not people who think they are above us.

#8 - "This election is not about issues," Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager said this week. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." That's a scary thought.

NOTE FROM ME: And finally we have one of the oldest tricks in the book, lifting a quote out of context. What Rick Davis was saying is that while issues are and should be important, the arc of this election has now shifted because of the hateful way in which the American Left has reacted to Sarah Palin over the past week. There is nothing 'scary' about voters using a compositve view of candidates in order to make their decisions. As I have argued before, none of us are foreign policy experts -- and it is a completely unrealistic expectation to suggest that voters must become thoroughly educated on every single issue. In fact, it is the sole province of the secularist Left to insist that every voter must become a policy wonk every four years, because politics serves as a replacement for their lack of any grounding faith. If they lose an election, it's as if their gods have been humiliated. If people of faith -- either liberals or conservatives -- lose an election, it's just another bump in the road on the journey of life. So voters should educated themselves on issues to the extent they can within time constraints, family obligations and so on. But we can and should also examine candidates' characters, their biographies, and how they react under the pressure of a presidential campaign. We can watch the presidential and vice presidential debates. We can learn about their lives, and about the moments in their lives which have revealed their true inner character. And then we can vote.

And those are my thoughts for the day.

Typo in above sentence: "So voters should EDUCATE themselves on issues to the extent they can within time constraints, family obligations and so on."

"If you hear a big sucking sound later tonight and everything goes black, you'll know they just turned on the LHC in Geneva and the hysterical fears were justified. ;^)

Bye-bye, y'all!"

ROFL! Good one!

shorter erin manning:

abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion.

erin, we get it, you're a single issue voter. you hate modernity. i remember you whining about how awful the modern world, the one in which you and your precious homeschooled, taint free children are in the top 2% of the most fortunate today, and easily within the top 0.00001% of all time, continues to be.

i'm sorry erin. i'm sorry there are those who don't share your inflexible and domineering morality. here's some advice:

DEAL WITH IT.

Great screen name, "hysterics;" I've always been fond of aptronyms.

JimN, once again I have to take issue with you, which I don't like to do, because I think you're a good guy. Really. But "...the Religious right goes against the principle of freedom and wants to use the power of the government to control who people area and what they believe" is another example of your tendency to see the speck while ignoring the log. Do you really think that only the Religious Right is into control? It's not James Dobson (a boring and narrow minded man, IMHO) who promulgated the freshman orientation/political reeducation at the University of Delaware. (Visit the website for FIRE and learn all about it.) It's not Pat Robertson (a well-known loon, IMHO) who's threatening fines for San Francisco residents who put food scraps in the garbage, rather than recycling them. It's not Benny Hinn (don't get me started) roaring that the debate is over about global warming, and smearing those with opposing views as ignorant "denialists') I'm Orthodox, and far from the Religious Right, but I also live in Oregon, close to Portland, and I daily see attempts to use the power of government to control who people are and what they believe. I cannot believe that you have never met doctrinaire leftists who are every bit as good at political orthodoxy sniffing as are the attack dogs of the Right. Trust me, they're out there. They run the government in Portland. The issue isn't bad and authoritarian Right v virtuous and easy-going Left. The issue is the lamentable human tendency to cling to Our Side while hurling poo at Their Side. We all do it, JimN. Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. They, WE, will always let us down, always grasp at power, always demonize THEM. Look at these comboxes. May God have mercy on us all.

Erin,

Thanks for the civil tone.

To take your argument point by point:

Freedom of Speech: I, too, can see some potential problems with hate crime laws. They are to me misguided and basically equivalent to other types of attempts at legislating morality.

Freedom of Association: Diversity laws—mixed feelings. If you’re talking about, say, religious organizations being forced to hire homosexuals, I don’t think any serious Christian would really say they don’t want to be around homosexuals because of who they are. An organization with that standard doesn’t strike me as a church, but more of a private organization. Discrimination is wrong. I can’t think of a clear principle to apply, but I believe it’s OK to have a men’s club, for example, or a girls-only sports team, but not a whites-only organization. OK, so private organizations with a gender-oriented purpose are all right but not ones with a race-oriented purpose. Gays are the squishy gray area, but I think the Christian attitude should be one of compassion for the sick, and the hope of healing through attraction and grace. Maybe I’m mistaken on this…

Freedom of Religion: Mostly I agree with you completely on all these. The only comment I have is that I also despise paying for abortions with my taxes but I don’t see a way to pick and choose. Lots of people hated their taxes going for the invasion of Iraq, and they didn’t have a choice in the matter, so it’s not just a question of Liberals controlling everything. As a practical matter, the only way to change this is to change the government’s policy with lobbying and elections.

Conservatives don’t condemn people to Hell: Well, maybe those of us who don’t consider ourselves members of the Religious Right are not hearing properly, but the message I’ve gotten from the likes of Falwell and Robertson is that yes indeed, I am going to Hell for being who I am and believing what I believe. Especially since I’m Orthodox and don’t agree with their theology. I’m not going to fall in line with their ideal of an Evangelical-dominated America with all its attendant theological issues.

By the way, I’m not trying to imply I’m gay with the “who I am” comments (I’m not). What I am saying, and this gets to your “counter-cultural” argument, is that I hear this strong push for social conformity from the RR. It’s kind of goody-two-shoes (forgive me) and the (to me) overwhelming norm is to be white, American, and dress, look, and act the same. A strong emphasis on outward appearances. Interesting that both of us can see ourselves as the outcast, though.

Before you say it’s the same on the Left, let me say I’m real sensitive to the fact that the religious conservative (which, as I’ve mentioned, I am) can experience this. However, to me the Left is more accepting of diversity, and I think Christ, Who will judge us by our hearts, does not expect us to look or act in a particularly homogenous American way. In fact, in the world’s diversity I see the handwork of God. (I don’t mean religious diversity.)

Also, and this is my perspective and there’s no way to resolve this—we could each cite example after example—I do believe that the RR is way more judgmental than the secular left.

So, where am I coming from? We’re Christians and we’re held to a higher standard. It’s not enough to say, “Well, the Left does it, too.” We have to ask ourselves how we represent Christ in our culture and if we’re turning people away or bringing them in. I don’t think we’re going to convert everyone—we know from our beliefs that we are not. But we do have to take responsibility for ourselves, and not just externalize our work. Most if not all of our work is supposed to be on the inside, and we’re supposed to rejoice when persecuted for Christ’s sake. This, to my understanding, is what it means to be the salt of the earth. I can tell you that I’ve made a lot more non-believers at least respect Christ more, and on one or two occasions start going to church, by being a good friend than by getting passionate about religion. I’ve done that too, and turned people off. I’ll bet most people reading this blog could say the same thing.

Scott Walker:

From what you write, I now understand why my brother and his wife like Portland.

hysterics - "Deal with it" is a crude response, at best.

In my daily life, I probably agree with Erin on more things than not.

The fact that there is, at bottom, the abortion issue that may always divide the nation, does not mean anyone is excused from treating pro-life people respectfully.

The most obnoxious voices on the religious right, the ones who get the media attention, are not particularly representative of the RR, anymore than op-ed writers or the Ninja-anarchists who drew police attention in St.Paul last week are representative of most liberals.

I am old enough to remember when pro-lifers attended Democratic conventions. Besides their opposition to abortion, they were supportive of the changing attitude toward battered women (supporting refuges and police protection, when that was still a new idea), supportive of progressive tax schedules and environmental protection and all sorts of liberal agendas. I was part of a Democratic district convention rules committee at age 17. We wrote voting rules that assured the delegation we sent to the state convention was proportionally representative, meaning that some of the pro-life people were sent up to state. We were one of the few if not the only- everyone was after "unconditional surrender" about abortion.

Pro-life people were driven out of the Democratic party. We contributed to this current social division, have no doubt about it. If the party had left abortion out of the platform, leaving it to personal conscience, there is little doubt in my mind that many Erins and Rods might consider being Democrats - staying to fight the good fight over details of tax policy and such. I am sorry we lost them.

Brendan Moran says: "Yes, and?"

Brendan, did you intentionally mean to concede the point about whether life in the womb is human? I'm basically giving you a chance here to retreat to the traditional pro-abortion position that it isn't human life.

On the other hand, perhaps you meant it, in which case your statement that you are "morally pro-abortion" all the more horrifying. Because there's noting sane about that position.

Elizabeth, I agree with you about the effects of the Democratic party's shift on abortion, and its sad consequences.

FYI:

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

"Do the fact that she's corrupt, a liar, etc. mean *nothing* to you?"

I've been fairly clear that, on learning more about her, I am increasingly ambivalent toward her.

I'm not as convinced as you that she's personally corrupt. However do I think she lies, has made stupid decisions, has no foreign policy experience, and lacks follow-through on some important issues? Yeah, judging by what I know so far. I just don't think that's everything about her.

JimN,

Actually, what I engaged in were ad femminem defenses of Sarah Palin against ad femminem attacks upon her, and by extension ad femminem defenses of my daughter against ad femminem attacks upon her by those who seek to diminish what her life can be and to make the world that she is growing up in a worse place for her and for all of the other little girls now growing up.

If that makes me a smart guy -- or a smarter guy than you (or Judith Warner) (or Barbara Streisand), then so be it.

Sorry.

All three of you should learn to deal.

I heard on you tube a recording of Sarah Palin calling into a right wing radio program in Alaska and laughing along with the hosts who called her opponent, republican Lyda Green, the "b" word and a "cancer". How is this Christian behavior? I decided then she didn't have the common decency necessary for V.P. or for any public service job. BTW, Lyda Green is battling cancer. When we talk about values its always the actions that speak louder than the words.

Brenda Moran,

Reading this blog does not necessarily make one a crunchy con -- as you yourself should know.

But if the crunchy con world is "hell," then I can say to you without hesitation:

"Brenda, go to hell."

You'll find it much more to your liking than Barackistan or whatever boondock it is in which you now live.

"rlb1961 just for kicks could you back up your claim about what the left is up to with a quote for any elected democrat or someone who has an official position in the party?"

Peter, I chose my words carefully. Note I didn't say "the Democratic Party" or "the Obama campaign". But I think groups and sites like DailyKos, Andrew Sullivan, Democratic Underground and most news media outlets (repeating the smears promulgated by others) can reasonably be considered representative of "the left".

"Brendan, you have ceded the ground upon which any 'human' can be considered to have any value, including yourself. In your world view, you and I are worth nothing more than a rock"

Well, yeah, of course, at least in terms of inherent worth, objectively speaking. Why would I even want that ground? There's nothing particularly "magical" or special about human biology. The tendency of humans to think humans are somehow "special" is like the tendency of parents to think their own kids are the most intelligent/best looking/etc. It's a totally normal and understandable feeling, rooted in a healthy affection for something we're attached to, but not a good guide to objective fact. We like humans more than rocks, because we're humans, but that doesn't mean there's anything special or uniquely valuable about human life, per se. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings or something.

Also, there's nothing "mere" about appetite or nature, and "the soul" is an illusion. I think all this is less objectionable if you don't have all these weird ego-gratifying but ultimately nonsensical notions about human specialness.

Brendan,

Have you considered the idea that a society organized around the central principle of respecting human dignity would be a society incapable of abusing people/violating their rights, and would also tend to make sure that people's basic needs were taken care of? If you contrast that with where we've been for the last 8 years, with all its abuses of power, it may seem more appealing to you. In the absence of human dignity as an organizing principle, something else might step in, like the profit motive, which IMO is where America is today.

"Have you considered the idea that a society organized around the central principle of respecting human dignity would be a society incapable of abusing people/violating their rights, and would also tend to make sure that people's basic needs were taken care of?"

There's no reason to believe that that's the case. On the contrary, there's every reason to suspect that a society organized around such a principle would be a paternalistic theocracy society where all power lay in the hands of those who got to define "dignity" - for the good of everyone, I'm sure.

Moreover, some things I would consider to be a fundamental right - say, the right to sovereignty over my own body, including my own genetic code or my own reproductive organs, or my right to pursue scientific knowledge and technological development - seem to come into conflict with the idea of "human dignity" as you see it pretty frequently. A society that prevents women from terminating unwanted pregnancies, does its best to obstruct stem cell research, tries to suppress any form of intimate relationship or sexual expression outside of universal lifelong heterosexual monogamy *is* inherently abusive, *does* inherently violate people's rights, and *does not* and *cannot* meet the basic needs of large segments of the population.

I'm a pro-globalization polyamorous transhumanist who is a great deal more comfortable with the profit motive than with some of the other motives in evidence in this thread. How exactly would I fit into your society? Or my close friends, lovers, etc. who are part of my community? How exactly would you go about respecting our rights and meeting our basic needs? My guess is that you'll say that we'd find a deeper happiness popping out a few kids in a nice small town somewhere and growing our own organic tomatoes than we ever would with our shallow, hedonistic, inauthentic lifestyle. Am I right?

Sorry, in the previous post, "theocracy" should instead say "theocratic."

"On these grounds, you could never argue against the Holocaust."

Sure you could. I prefer living in an ethnically and culturally diverse society which cannot coexist peacefully with Nazi Germany. Therefore, I will do my best to eliminate Nazi Germany or any society like it. That's really all the justification anyone needs.

"Brendan, I'm unable to puzzle out how you make these value judgements.

Given the constructs of lack of human worth you've elucidated, how are you able to hold any opinions about comfort with profit motive, community, rights or basic needs? If a human isn't worth any more than a rock, upon what grounds do you create these categories?"

I was responding to JimN's post, which framed itself in terms like "rights" and "needs" and all that poppycock, but that was just because those were the terms being bandied around and he was trying to sell me on the idea that a society organized around the principle of "human dignity" would give me what I wanted out of a society. I rejected that notion in his own terms, though if I had wanted to go all-out I would have rejected the terms as well.

Basically, your question is meaningless. What grounds do I need beyond personal preference and self-interest? We live in a universe that is fundamentally amoral and without inherent meaning, and while I don't have any more value than a rock, or a cougar, or a lichen, but I don't have any less value either. On what grounds does your cat express outrage about being put in the bath? By what right does a goat eat grass? The ideas of "rights" and "morality" and "good" and "evil" and "justification" have some rhetorical value but are, ultimately, meaningless. You ask "how do I justify XYZ?" and I respond "Why do I need justification? To whom do I need to justify myself?"

Jeez, Brendan, why even waste your meaningless time from your meaningless life to post on this meaningless blog? "Rights and needs and all that poppycock." Grim freaking world you occupy. Thanks for sharing.

Brendan writes: "Basically, your question is meaningless. What grounds do I need beyond personal preference and self-interest? We live in a universe that is fundamentally amoral and without inherent meaning, and while I don't have any more value than a rock, or a cougar, or a lichen, but I don't have any less value either. On what grounds does your cat express outrage about being put in the bath? By what right does a goat eat grass? The ideas of "rights" and "morality" and "good" and "evil" and "justification" have some rhetorical value but are, ultimately, meaningless. You ask "how do I justify XYZ?" and I respond "Why do I need justification? To whom do I need to justify myself?"

Brendan, thanks for making the case against your nihilistic worldview better than I probably could myself. At least you are intellectually honest. Others would try to squirm away from the end-point implications of your "values." To your credit, you dive right in! Go, Ubermensch, go!

"What grounds do I need beyond personal preference and self-interest?"

Basically Brendan, you are conceding Betty Carter's point before she even made it. Anyone could decided based on their own personal preference that you are worthless and needed to be eliminated.

Amoral anarchy or fascism are only two possible horrors that could arise from your worldview, which Nietzsche already did a bang up job of elucidating more than a century ago. You are essentially an emerging fascist, Brendan, and it is no surprise that in a society that has begun to lose its moorings, people increasingly share your views.

Do not take this as an unkindly comment, Brendan, but this is all intellectual masturbation on your part, and a tremendously wearisome exercise in willfully obtuse semantics and sophistry. Your fascism is indeed showing. Put it away.

I don't know if Sarah is anymore idiot than me! George