(05/25/10) "Palin Refuses to Learn Anything" (by Ruth Marcus, TruthDig)

[Spang]

Has Sarah Palin learned anything since she was plucked from obscurity almost two years ago? Not that I can tell.

It was not Palin’s fault that she was woefully unprepared to be the Republican vice presidential nominee. For that one, blame the petulant, impetuous John McCain.

But Palin has had ample time now, outside the crash course of a presidential campaign, to develop and exhibit some understanding of the issues. Her learning curve, from all the available evidence, is a flat line.

Three unattractive Palin traits have, if anything, been amplified since the election: her unwillingness to buckle down and do the necessary preparation; her tendency to adopt what McCain adviser Steve Schmidt described as a “down is up and up is down” version of reality; and her enhanced sense of injury at the hands of what she oh-so-cleverly refers to as the “lamestream media.”

The Source (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/palin_refuses_to_learn_anything_20100525/)

[samurai007]

Call me when a Democratic nominee for a Senate seat questions the Civil Rights Act and liberal commentators drop the ball.

Why don't they question the Democrat Senator who, not hypothetically, if he were around might then, might quibble over 1 of the 10 articles, but rather actually filibustered the actual Civil Rights Bill for an astonishing 14 hours and 13 minutes, Robert Byrd?

[foxyladi]

Why don't they question the Democrat Senator who, not hypothetically, if he were around might then, might quibble over 1 of the 10 articles, but rather actually filibustered the actual Civil Rights Bill for an astonishing 14 hours and 13 minutes, Robert Byrd?


and he is still alive and kicking.:eek:...well alive anyway:laughing:

[Spang]

Is there a Sarah Palin vileness/absurdity threshold?

A question for fellow reporters and editors: At what point do Sarah Palin's attacks and smears become so vile and absurd that they no longer merit attention? Is there such a point?

Palin, who has broken the mold in so many ways, has defied the laws of political and media gravity in another fashion: Despite the ever-mounting ridiculousness of her claims, she continues to get attention. This isn't so with other figures. Frequently those who traffic in absurdity and smears to get media attention keep upping the ante until their assertions become so grotesque and self-parodic that they are no longer newsworthy.

It's kind of like inflation: Keep printing more money and the value of it keeps dropping. That hasn't happened with Palin.

Yesterday Palin launched a bizarre and rambling attack on a journalist that by any standard should make us seriously pause. Her target was award-winning journalist Joe McGinniss, who has rented the house next door to her to research a book. The short version is that she suggested he might be peeping at her kids.

Palin is siccing her fans on a journalist who might be planning to cover her with something less than outright adoration. Dave Weigel notes that Palin's attack was "strange, unprofessional, and paranoid," and constitued "irresponsible and pathetic bullying."

In fairness, McGinniss is doing something a bit unorthodox, and for that reason this particular standoff is perhaps somewhat newsworthy. But more broadly, as long as Palin isn't an actual candidate for public office, at what point do we stop rewarding every statement from Palin, no matter how vicious or mendacious, with attention? Should there be such a point?

That's a real question, by the way. I'd love to hear what other reporters and editors have to say about this.

The Source (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/is_there_a_sarah_palin_absurdi.html)

[Spang]

Sarah Palin's strange, unprofessional and paranoid grudge

Sarah Palin took to her Facebook account today to inform her readers that Joe McGinniss, an award-winning reporter and author, had rented the house next door.

I saw Ben Smith flag this earlier today but did not really appreciate how strange and, frankly, immature Palin's post was until I read it.

Palin informs her readers that McGinniss is "overlooking my children’s play area" and "overlooking Piper’s bedroom." Alternately sounding angry and mocking, she refers to "the family’s swimming hole," which at first reference sounds like she's accusing McGinniss of checking out the Palins in their bathing suits, until you realize the family's "swimming hole" is Lake Lucille. And she posts a photo of the space McGinniss is renting, captioning it, "Can I call you Joe?"

Can somebody explain to me how this isn't a despicable thing for Palin to do? She describes McGinniss as the author of "the bizarre anti-Palin administration oil development pieces that resulted in my Department of Natural Resources announcing that his work is the most twisted energy-related yellow journalism they’d ever encountered."

Another way of putting it would be that McGinniss is an investigative journalist who wrote his first best-seller at age 26 and was shopping a book about Alaska and the oil industry when Palin was named John McCain's running mate. And another way of describing those "bizarre" pieces is that no one has ever challenged the facts in them.

Palin, who has an undergraduate degree in journalism, should understand that articles don't become untrue when the subjects don't agree with them.

Has McGinniss gone to an extreme to get a story? Well, we don't have his side yet -- not that this has prevented every other media outlet from typing up Palin's Facebook post like some lost Gospel. But assuming he's rented the house near the Palins for some period of time, assuming the Palins know he's there and that he's writing a book, then what, exactly, is wrong with this?

Politicians don't have veto power over who gets to write about them, or how they research their stories, as long as they're within the bounds of the law. It's incredibly irresponsible for them to sic their fans on journalists they don't like. And that's what Palin is doing here -- she has already inspired Glenn Beck to accuse McGinniss of "stalking" Palin and issuing a threat to boycott his publisher.

This is really the ultimate example of the way Palin manipulates the press and inverts the relationship between reporters and politicians, turning the former into "stalkers," and the latter -- as long as they're Republicans or members of her family -- into saints whom no one can criticize. No one in the media should reward Palin for this irresponsible and pathetic bullying.

The Source (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/sarah_palins_strange_unprofess.html)

[Tybee]

Sarah Palin's strange, unprofessional and paranoid grudge

That could be turned around to say 'Spang's strange, unprofessional and paranoid grudge'.

[Jim744]

Opinions only about Palin. And wrong and over the top at that!

[Suzan]

Why don't they question the Democrat Senator who, not hypothetically, if he were around might then, might quibble over 1 of the 10 articles, but rather actually filibustered the actual Civil Rights Bill for an astonishing 14 hours and 13 minutes, Robert Byrd?
What makes you think liberal commentators didn't question Byrd at the time?

[Suzan]

I think this author is quite accurate about Palin and I say this as someone who voted for the McCain-Palin ticket and supported and defended her. I loved her record of bipartisanship and reform in Alaska and I had high hopes, but sadly they are just about all dashed.

I see very little evidence that she does her homework or is well-prepared on the issues beyond the standard talking points. Is she offering anything new or visionary? Is she offering real solutions beyond suggesting legislation should be based on biblical principles? Is she doing anything to bridge the divide between the parties? Not that I can see.

[Spang]

Is she offering real solutions beyond suggesting legislation should be based on biblical principles?

Nope. The so-called "expert on energy" has no solution for the corporate disaster happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Coast region.

[Jim744]

I think this author is quite accurate about Palin and I say this as someone who voted for the McCain-Palin ticket and supported and defended her. I loved her record of bipartisanship and reform in Alaska and I had high hopes, but sadly they are just about all dashed.

I see very little evidence that she does her homework or is well-prepared on the issues beyond the standard talking points. Is she offering anything new or visionary? Is she offering real solutions beyond suggesting legislation should be based on biblical principles? Is she doing anything to bridge the divide between the parties? Not that I can see.

I wouldn't at this point if I were here. Obama will steal them!

[sojourner]

I see very little evidence that she does her homework or is well-prepared on the issues beyond the standard talking points. Is she offering anything new or visionary? no
Is she offering real solutions beyond suggesting legislation should be based on biblical principles?You are unbelievable sometimes.
Is she doing anything to bridge the divide between the parties? Not that I can see.Haven't you heard, the moderates are coming to her.

[LadyLazarus]

I think this author is quite accurate about Palin and I say this as someone who voted for the McCain-Palin ticket and supported and defended her. I loved her record of bipartisanship and reform in Alaska and I had high hopes, but sadly they are just about all dashed.

I see very little evidence that she does her homework or is well-prepared on the issues beyond the standard talking points. Is she offering anything new or visionary? Is she offering real solutions beyond suggesting legislation should be based on biblical principles? Is she doing anything to bridge the divide between the parties? Not that I can see.

I have to say I disagree with this. I don't think Marcus is accurate at all about Palin. There are just too many bizarre, de facto statements in this piece taken as if they were the truth or understood as fact by everyone. The problem is that the writer's bias is infecting everything in this piece, even though she uses a clever rhetorical tactic to make it appear as if she's going out of her way to remain unbiased.

Saying bizarre things like "the emperor has no clothes" as if it's just common knowledge about Palin or suggesting Palin isn't clever or original because she uses the phrase "lamestream media," which is used so often in the blogosphere that it's become just part of standard politico-speak. I see the phrase used so much by independents and conservatives now, that it wouldn't have even of caught my attention--so why does it catch Marcus's attention? And the context in which she calls her a "cheerleader" imo is actually sexist.

I think Palin is a savage, literally, but not for the reasons this writer suggests.

[foxyladi]

lamestream or blamestream??:eek::eek:

[Suzan]

I have to say I disagree with this. I don't think Marcus is accurate at all about Palin. There are just too many bizarre, de facto statements in this piece taken as if they were the truth or understood as fact by everyone. The problem is that the writer's bias is infecting everything in this piece, even though she uses a clever rhetorical tactic to make it appear as if she's going out of her way to remain unbiased.

Saying bizarre things like "the emperor has no clothes" as if it's just common knowledge about Palin or suggesting Palin isn't clever or original because she uses the phrase "lamestream media," which is used so often in the blogosphere that it's become just part of standard politico-speak. I see the phrase used so much by independents and conservatives now, that it wouldn't have even of caught my attention--so why does it catch Marcus's attention? And the context in which she calls her a "cheerleader" imo is actually sexist.

I think Palin is a savage, literally, but not for the reasons this writer suggests.
Maybe accurate was a bad choice of words. I found myself agreeing with much of what I read, so for me the author was on target with many of her concerns about Palin. My list of concerns comes from my own sense of how Palin has squandered the opportunities she's been given, other than the chance to make a boatload of money.

I'm now sure my expectations of her were unrealistic, but I couldn't even have imagined the goofiness and lack of substance she's shown over the last few months.

[Spang]

Sarah Palin's Neighbor

In case you missed it because you actually have a life, author Joe McGinnis, who's writing a book about Sarah Palin, has rented the house next door to her. Palin immediately posted a Facebook greeting that included this line: "Wonder what kind of material he’ll gather while overlooking Piper’s bedroom, my little garden, and the family’s swimming hole?" The none-too-subtle insinuation that McGinnis is some kind of pedophile is vintage Palin, and undeniably disgusting.

Still, I have to wonder: am I the only lefty around who finds McGinnis's action a little disturbing? McGinnis obviously isn't breaking any laws, public figures have very little expectation (legal or otherwise) of privacy, and digging deep for book material is what any good journalist should do. Still. It seems a little over the top. Am I being too squeamish, allowing my personal conviction that even politicians deserve a certain zone of privacy to override my better judgment? In the age of Oprah, am I just a dinosaur? Or is McGinnis in fact crossing a line here? Comments?

The Source (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/sarah-palins-neighbor)

[Suzan]

Still, I have to wonder: am I the only lefty around who finds McGinnis's action a little disturbing? McGinnis obviously isn't breaking any laws, public figures have very little expectation (legal or otherwise) of privacy, and digging deep for book material is what any good journalist should do. Still. It seems a little over the top. Am I being too squeamish, allowing my personal conviction that even politicians deserve a certain zone of privacy to override my better judgment? In the age of Oprah, am I just a dinosaur? Or is McGinnis in fact crossing a line here? Comments?

I think it's very disturbing. I have a generally favorable impression of Joe McGinnis's work, but really, is he a journalist or the paparazzi?

[mack20]

I think it's very disturbing. I have a generally favorable impression of Joe McGinnis's work, but really, is he a journalist or the paparazzi?

I agree. If it were my family I'd be concerned by it for sure. Having said that, Palin's tack of insinuating that people are pedophiles is pretty disgusting as well. In a situation where even I, someone who really dislikes her and everything she does, would have mostly (and maybe entirely) been on her side, she manages to react to it in a way that does nothing but confirm my opinion of her as being completely ridiculous.

[sojourner]

I agree. If it were my family I'd be concerned by it for sure. Having said that, Palin's tack of insinuating that people are pedophiles is pretty disgusting as well. In a situation where even I, someone who really dislikes her and everything she does, would have mostly (and maybe entirely) been on her side, she manages to react to it in a way that does nothing but confirm my opinion of her as being completely ridiculous.

I think you have to do a lot of reading between the lines to take a list of things that he could see from his location and get that she was insinuating that he was a pedophile. And insinuating that she was insinuating such is pretty disgusting as well.

[mack20]

I think you have to do a lot of reading between the lines to take a list of things that he could see from his location and get that she was insinuating that he was a pedophile. And insinuating that she was insinuating such is pretty disgusting as well.

I might not have done that if she hadn't done it in the past.

[sojourner]

I might not have done that if she hadn't done it in the past.

Who did she accuse of being a pedophile?

[mack20]

Who did she accuse of being a pedophile?

David Letterman.

[sojourner]

David Letterman.

Are you referring to this?
"Concerning Letterman's comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he'd ever dare make such comments about anyone else's daughter): 'Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands – that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.'"

[mack20]

Are you referring to this?

No, this:

"The Palins have no intention of providing a rating's [sic] boost for David Letterman by appearing on the show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman."

Though the fact that she up and ran with the story about how his joke was about Willow when it was CLEARLY about Bristol (and unless she really is as stupid as I think she is, which she was perfectly well aware of) doesn't exactly help anyone's case who tries to claim she wasn't inferring that Letterman is a pedophile.

[sojourner]

No, this:



Though the fact that she up and ran with the story about how his joke was about Willow when it was CLEARLY about Bristol (and unless she really is as stupid as I think she is, which she was perfectly well aware of) doesn't exactly help anyone's case who tries to claim she wasn't inferring that Letterman is a pedophile.

so, you are taking the words of a third party? Plus Willow is not a young child and that statement does not imply that Letterman is a pedophile, just that it would be wise to keep Willow away from his "perverted" sense of humor.

[mack20]

so, you are taking the words of a third party? Plus Willow is not a young child and that statement does not imply that Letterman is a pedophile, just that it would be wise to keep Willow away from his "perverted" sense of humor.

What third party? That was Sarah Palin's official response to the media when Letterman suggested she come on the show to smooth things over. She not only approved the statement, she defended it in an interview with Matt Lauer. There's no "third party" involved here.

[cinnamongirl]

so, you are taking the words of a third party? Plus Willow is not a young child and that statement does not imply that Letterman is a pedophile, just that it would be wise to keep Willow away from his "perverted" sense of humor.

You seem to be contorting a lot there, don't hurt yourself. Willow is still underage, which was the implication. Otherwise, she would have just said Bristol. As for the "third party," that was Palin's office (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/06/11/palin-swings-back-wouldnt-let-willow-near-letterman/) which released the statement. Are you suggesting that statements released on someone's behalf by her own staff don't really speak for her?

[sojourner]

You seem to be contorting a lot there, don't hurt yourself. Willow is still underage, which was the implication. Otherwise, she would have just said Bristol. As for the "third party," that was Palin's office (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/06/11/palin-swings-back-wouldnt-let-willow-near-letterman/) which released the statement. Are you suggesting that statements released on someone's behalf by her own staff don't really speak for her?

I doubt that she approved the exact wording but even if she did the statement does not suggest that he is a pedophile. I don't think that he is a pedophile and I wouldn't advise Palin to allow Willow on his show. I doubt you would either.

[mack20]

I doubt that she approved the exact wording but even if she did the statement does not suggest that he is a pedophile. I don't think that he is a pedophile and I wouldn't advise Palin to allow Willow on his show. I doubt you would either.

She defended the statement (that exact statement) to Matt Lauer. Also, Letterman invited Sarah Palin on his show, not Willow. For all she knew, he didn't want Willow on TV. She had zero reason to bring her 14 year old daughter's name into the conversation. Unless, of course, she was specifically trying to say that it wouldn't be smart to allow Letterman near her 14 year old. Which one might say if they were trying to insinuate that someone was, oh I don't know, a pedophile?

Couple that with her little rant about Letterman's joke (that honestly, anyone with even half a brain could tell was aimed at Bristol) and the use of phrases like "sexual exploitation of minors by older men" and you don't have to be a super sleuth to figure out the narrative she was trying to write.

[sojourner]

She defended the statement (that exact statement) to Matt Lauer. Also, Letterman invited Sarah Palin on his show, not Willow. For all she knew, he didn't want Willow on TV. She had zero reason to bring her 14 year old daughter's name into the conversation. Unless, of course, she was specifically trying to say that it wouldn't be smart to allow Letterman near her 14 year old. Which one might say if they were trying to insinuate that someone was, oh I don't know, a pedophile?

Couple that with her little rant about Letterman's joke (that honestly, anyone with even half a brain could tell was aimed at Bristol) and the use of phrases like "sexual exploitation of minors by older men" and you don't have to be a super sleuth to figure out the narrative she was trying to write.

If you really think that Palin thinks that Letterman and McGinnis are pedophiles, fine. You could be right. I just have a different take. I could be wrong. It is bound to happen sooner or later.

[mack20]

If you really think that Palin thinks that Letterman and McGinnis are pedophiles, fine. You could be right. I just have a different take. I could be wrong. It is bound to happen sooner or later.

I don't believe that she thinks that. But I do believe that she's trying to make other people think it.

[jlynne]

That's too big of a leap for me to make, at least from the statements that you've posted. If you said she insinuated that David Letterman was a pervert, I could see that. But a pedophile is something much different and much more sinister. So the allegations have to go towards the crime of pedophilia in some way before I'd make the connection.

An investigative reporter renting the house next door is creepy, to say the least, but I doubt it is all that different from having reporters camped out in front of your house all the time. I remember how the Bush ranch was when he was in Crawford ... heck ... even when he wasn't in Crawford.

I guess I'd have to be more familiar with the situation to make a judgment on its appropriateness one way or the other.

[Aria]

"Palin Refuses to Learn Anything" (by Ruth Marcus, TruthDig)

Ho hum. (:|(:|(:|

[hillary4change]

That could be turned around to say 'Spang's strange, unprofessional and paranoid grudge'.
Too funny!

I think it's very disturbing. I have a generally favorable impression of Joe McGinnis's work, but really, is he a journalist or the paparazzi?
It is very creepy for a male reporter to rent a house next door to a home filled with women and a young girl!! That is going too far. If it were me and my daughters, I would not be happy. The guy is making himself look like a freak.

I think you have to do a lot of reading between the lines to take a list of things that he could see from his location and get that she was insinuating that he was a pedophile. And insinuating that she was insinuating such is pretty disgusting as well.

I agree with sojourner, I got that she was characterizing him as a pervert, which he is BTW! He was very specific in what he said that night.

<snip>During his opening monologue, Letterman poked fun at Sarah and Willow's recent weekend outing to a Yankees game, joking that, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." <snip>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2009/06/did-letterman-go-too-far-with-willow-palin-joke.html

He did not specify Bristol, he was talking about the daughter at the game....the 14 yr. old!! Perverted and very rude, but he is after all a pervert...just ask his wife and young son.

[Spang]

Spread the word, everyone, Joe McGinniss is a sex offender!

[Suzan]

If you Google it, you'll find that lots of people think Palin was implying Letterman was a pedophile. I found page after page of references, including right wing sites like Free Republic, many of which label Letterman as a pedophile based on his joke and Palin's comments about it. Actually, I gave up the search at page 41. I don't know how many there actually were.

[sojourner]

If you Google it, you'll find that lots of people think Palin was implying Letterman was a pedophile. I found page after page of references, including right wing sites like Free Republic, many of which label Letterman as a pedophile based on his joke and Palin's comments about it. Actually, I gave up the search at page 41. I don't know how many there actually were.

You will also find a lot of people think that Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya. I am a little surprised at your post.

[Aria]

If you Google it, you'll find that lots of people think Palin was implying Letterman was a pedophile. I found page after page of references, including right wing sites like Free Republic, many of which label Letterman as a pedophile based on his joke and Palin's comments about it. Actually, I gave up the search at page 41. I don't know how many there actually were.

Google it? References? Well, if it makes a better story, you can bet it will be passed around that way. Letterman was way out of line, and whatever implication Palin could have made would hardly have been too much.

[mack20]

]

[SIZE="3"]He did not specify Bristol, he was talking about the daughter at the game....the 14 yr. old!! Perverted and very rude, but he is after all a pervert...just ask his wife and young son.

Didn't we already go through this once? I specifically remember, back when this started, asking anyone on the board to produce an article about the game or picture from it that had been made public prior to Letterman's joke that showed that it was Willow who attended the game. As far as I recall, no one was ever able or willing to show me a source that did that. The joke does not make sense unless it's about Bristol.

I'm not saying Letterman's a saint here. I don't even LIKE the guy. He's done some creepy things in his past. But this incident was not one of them. It was Sarah Palin doing what she seems to do best. Taking something minor and blowing it up so that she can play the "mama bear protecting her poor defenseless cubs" card. Don't get me wrong, a mother should protect her children and I don't approve of comments being made about her young kids in particular, ever. But Palin fabricates these grudges just so that she can make herself look like the protective mother. It's exceptionally manipulative.

[hillary4change]

Didn't we already go through this once? I specifically remember, back when this started, asking anyone on the board to produce an article about the game or picture from it that had been made public prior to Letterman's joke that showed that it was Willow who attended the game. As far as I recall, no one was ever able or willing to show me a source that did that. The joke does not make sense unless it's about Bristol.

I'm not saying Letterman's a saint here. I don't even LIKE the guy. He's done some creepy things in his past. But this incident was not one of them. It was Sarah Palin doing what she seems to do best. Taking something minor and blowing it up so that she can play the "mama bear protecting her poor defenseless cubs" card. Don't get me wrong, a mother should protect her children and I don't approve of comments being made about her young kids in particular, ever. But Palin fabricates these grudges just so that she can make herself look like the protective mother. It's exceptionally manipulative.

Third photo, right below Sarah's left hand. You can clearly see Willow. I found that on the first click of my Google search!!
NEXT!
Look where I found it, the Huffington post, ahh the irony!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/sarah-palins-yankee-stadi_n_212566.html

[Horizon]

40 some odd posts in and you all missed this?? Wow. Thats what you get for focusing on the argument.

http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/03/17/Governor-Palins-Big-Energy-Battles/


Written by McGinnis.

[LadyLazarus]

Maybe accurate was a bad choice of words. I found myself agreeing with much of what I read, so for me the author was on target with many of her concerns about Palin. My list of concerns comes from my own sense of how Palin has squandered the opportunities she's been given, other than the chance to make a boatload of money.

I'm now sure my expectations of her were unrealistic, but I couldn't even have imagined the goofiness and lack of substance she's shown over the last few months.

The article bugged me quite frankly because I'm tired of so many people who like to think they're so smart saying absolutely redundant, myopic, and obtuse things about her. The best piece (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/sarah-palin-is-coming-to-town/) I've read yet about her was written by the massively influential legal scholar, Professor Stanley Fish--you know, a guy who actually taught at UC Berkeley and Duke before becoming Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Chicago. In short, a guy who actually is smart.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think Palin squandered any opportunities. I think she's been driven, much like a savvy business woman, to capitalize on her own brand, and she has done that well beyond my own expectations. People may not like that she resigned her governorship, but it was the right thing for her to do. The governorship was sending her to the poor house and by resigning she allowed herself to take advantage of her own brand, which was making everyone and their mother, including major media outlets, butt-loads of money, except her. She's produced a best-selling book, landed a good gig on Fox, gets huge sums of money to speak, and is playing a major role in affecting conservative policy by continuing to blog, endorse, and stump for conservative issues and candidates. In fact, I think resigning was the best thing she ever could have done for herself, and I think she is currently the most influential person in conservative politics bar none.

I hate the fact that Palin still lives in a time-warp--that she's been entrapped in a bizarre medieval world where primitive man is still out wrestling his own food to the ground, a Christian God still exists, Muslims are still infidels, and it is just so easy--too easy--to demarcate between things like "good" and "evil." I hate this because it was during this period that humanity perpetrated some of the worst atrocities in history--crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts and so on. Because it is only in this rearguard world that it becomes virtually impossible to separate women from their reproductive role as mothers. Hence, being a true woman means seeing motherhood and maternity through the distorted lens of asceticism--as a condition that requires absolute sacrifice for your children--one's own dreams, ambitions and even physical health and well-being or indeed even one's own life. It becomes impossible in other words when inhabiting this kind of world to realize that female power can and often does have very little to do with being a mother.

But what I love about Palin is her femino-centric outlook. The fact that she respects Hillary Clinton and stumps for female colleagues in the trenches. Her deep and abiding interest in facilitating and fostering a sense of commonality between women and their sisterhood. Whatever she does, she does it with a belief that she is trying to empower all woman. And for these reasons, I can't hate her. She may be misguided in her fight, but she is doing it for the right reasons. So I can only smile tentatively and wince every now and again--kinda like how you look at a toddler taking her first steps. Of course there is concern and worry, but mostly there is just a lot of awe because you know they are destined to go on and do great things.

[samurai007]

The article bugged me quite frankly because I'm tired of so many people who like to think they're so smart saying absolutely redundant, myopic, and obtuse things about her. The best piece (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/sarah-palin-is-coming-to-town/) I've read yet about her was written by the massively influential legal scholar, Professor Stanley Fish--you know, a guy who actually taught at UC Berkeley and Duke before becoming Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Chicago. In short, a guy who actually is smart.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think Palin squandered any opportunities. I think she's been driven, much like a savvy business woman, to capitalize on her own brand, and she has done that well beyond my own expectations. People may not like that she resigned her governorship, but it was the right thing for her to do. The governorship was sending her to the poor house and by resigning she allowed herself to take advantage of her own brand, which was making everyone and their mother, including major media outlets, butt-loads of money, except her. She's produced a best-selling book, landed a good gig on Fox, gets huge sums of money to speak, and is playing a major role in affecting conservative policy by continuing to blog, endorse, and stump for conservative issues and candidates. In fact, I think resigning was the best thing she ever could have done for herself, and I think she is currently the most influential person in conservative politics bar none. We are in agreement here, but I'd also add that resigning was also the best thing for Alaska. Spending all her time and effort trying to fight off frivolous lawsuits meant she wasn't really able to concentrate on doing her job as governor. By stepping aside and letting someone who wasn't a lightning rod for the Democrats hate and vitriol take over, that person was able to do the job for the Alaskan people uninhibited.

I hate the fact that Palin still lives in a time-warp--that she's been entrapped in a bizarre medieval world where primitive man is still out wrestling his own food to the ground, a Christian God still exists, Muslims are still infidels, and it is just so easy--too easy--to demarcate between things like "good" and "evil." I hate this because it was during this period that humanity perpetrated some of the worst atrocities in history--crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts and so on. Because it is only in this rearguard world that it becomes virtually impossible to separate women from their reproductive role as mothers. Hence, being a true woman means seeing motherhood and maternity through the distorted lens of asceticism--as a condition that requires absolute sacrifice for your children--one's own dreams, ambitions and even physical health and well-being or indeed even one's own life. It become impossible in other words when inhabiting this kind of world to realize that female power can and often does have very little to do with being a mother. We disagree here, because clearly, Sarah does NOT believe that motherhood and maternity are the be all and end all of a woman's life. She's not a stay-at-home mom (not that there's anything wrong with that... my mom was one), she is very active in the community, ran for public offices, and became governor of the state despite having children to raise, and you know all of that took a fair amount of time away from them. She said Todd was a huge help in enabling her to do that, as he spent a lot of time helping raise the kids too.

But what I love about Palin is her femino-centric outlook. The fact that she respects Hillary Clinton and stumps for female colleagues in the trenches. Her deep and abiding interest in facilitating and fostering a sense of commonality between women and their sisterhood. Whatever she does, she does it with a belief that she is trying to empower all woman. And for these reasons, I can't hate her. She may be misguided in her fight, but she is doing it for the right reasons. So I can only smile tentatively and wince every now and again--kinda like how you look at a toddler taking her first steps. Of course there is concern and worry, but mostly there is just a lot of awe because you know they are destined to go on and do great things. And we're back to agreement here. :)

[sojourner]

The article bugged me quite frankly because I'm tired of so many people who like to think they're so smart saying absolutely redundant, myopic, and obtuse things about her. The best piece (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/sarah-palin-is-coming-to-town/) I've read yet about her was written by the massively influential legal scholar, Professor Stanley Fish--you know, a guy who actually taught at UC Berkeley and Duke before becoming Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Chicago. In short, a guy who actually is smart. Thanks for posting the link to fish's review of Palin's book. I have read her book and I think his was the best, most accurate, review of the book that I have read. If there was bias there, I didn't see it. I was a little surprised.

[mack20]

Third photo, right below Sarah's left hand. You can clearly see Willow. I found that on the first click of my Google search!!
NEXT!
Look where I found it, the Huffington post, ahh the irony!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/sarah-palins-yankee-stadi_n_212566.html

You can clearly see Willow? I think not.

EDIT: here's the picture where H4C is claiming that you can clearly see Willow Palin:
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1712/slide_1712_23260_large.jpg

This is crazy, I know, but do you know who Willow Palin kind of sort of looks like? Bristol Palin! Even more so when you can see about 1/4 of her face.

[Suzan]

And I'm sorry, but I don't think Palin squandered any opportunities. I think she's been driven, much like a savvy business woman, to capitalize on her own brand, and she has done that well beyond my own expectations. People may not like that she resigned her governorship, but it was the right thing for her to do. The governorship was sending her to the poor house and by resigning she allowed herself to take advantage of her own brand, which was making everyone and their mother, including major media outlets, butt-loads of money, except her. She's produced a best-selling book, landed a good gig on Fox, gets huge sums of money to speak, and is playing a major role in affecting conservative policy by continuing to blog, endorse, and stump for conservative issues and candidates. In fact, I think resigning was the best thing she ever could have done for herself, and I think she is currently the most influential person in conservative politics bar none.

Of course, I meant squandered opportunities in terms of the political promise I thought I saw in her. I'm still disappointed. Many of us are driven. Not many have the wherewithal, the chutzpah, the political ethics or the seeming selflessness to do what she did up in Alaska ... before she quit to do what was best for her. Of course, she had a right to do that and I have a right to be disappointed that she did, especially given the meager pickings that we the voters have to choose from these days.

I'm a disillusioned voter. I want some decent choices and she looked to me like more than a decent choice. As I said, a rare thing in this corrupt and divisive political climate.

[Suzan]

But what I love about Palin is her femino-centric outlook. The fact that she respects Hillary Clinton and stumps for female colleagues in the trenches. Her deep and abiding interest in facilitating and fostering a sense of commonality between women and their sisterhood. Whatever she does, she does it with a belief that she is trying to empower all woman. And for these reasons, I can't hate her. She may be misguided in her fight, but she is doing it for the right reasons. So I can only smile tentatively and wince every now and again--kinda like how you look at a toddler taking her first steps. Of course there is concern and worry, but mostly there is just a lot of awe because you know they are destined to go on and do great things.

I'd love it a lot more if she supported women's reproductive choices. If she ever decided to try and legislative her views, based on her religious beliefs, she'd send us all back to the dark ages. I was deeply disappointed that she could be short-sighted enought to supplant the fundamental right of women to control their own bodies with religious beliefs that make women subservient to men and slaves of their own reproductive biology, but I (a one-issue women's rights voter for a good part of my voting life) put that aside because of the promise I saw in her and because of this country's desperate need for some decent, ethical, pragmatic and driven to get things done politicians.

Her ability and willingness to get things done on either side of the aisle up in Alaska reminded me of Hillary and there's no higher standard in my mind, so yes, on that basis alone I believe Palin has squandered opportunities to ensure that the country and the lives of women are better.

And while I can appreciate her supporting and promoting other women, she only chooses the ones who believe as she does, which fundamentally goes against my belief in a woman's right to choose.

[LadyLazarus]

Thanks for posting the link to fish's review of Palin's book. I have read her book and I think his was the best, most accurate, review of the book that I have read. If there was bias there, I didn't see it. I was a little surprised.

Well, that's what I like about Fish. He's predictable in his unpredictability. You can never reduce him to a label or a caricature because he continues to think for himself and to try to find truth in any situation. The article he wrote on Palin pissed off a bunch of liberal academics because he's supposed to be one of them, so he's not allowed to break the unwritten rules of leftist membership: Palin hating.

He also wrote one of the most powerful indictments (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/) against "Hillary hating" during the run-up to the 2008 Democratic Primary that I've ever seen.

He's married to a famous feminist literary critic, Jane Thompkins, and the two of them are like a power-couple in that world.

BTW: If you're into literature, you would want to read the seminal books he wrote in Milton scholarship, Suprised by Sin and How Milton Works. These two books rocked the foundation of Milton scholarship and the discipline has never quite recovered from Fish's intervention.

[Suzan]

I hate the fact that Palin still lives in a time-warp--that she's been entrapped in a bizarre medieval world where primitive man is still out wrestling his own food to the ground, a Christian God still exists, Muslims are still infidels, and it is just so easy--too easy--to demarcate between things like "good" and "evil." I hate this because it was during this period that humanity perpetrated some of the worst atrocities in history--crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts and so on. Because it is only in this rearguard world that it becomes virtually impossible to separate women from their reproductive role as mothers. Hence, being a true woman means seeing motherhood and maternity through the distorted lens of asceticism--as a condition that requires absolute sacrifice for your children--one's own dreams, ambitions and even physical health and well-being or indeed even one's own life. It become impossible in other words when inhabiting this kind of world to realize that female power can and often does have very little to do with being a mother.

I agree with you completely here. I was raised in a fundamentalist home and know first-hand how damaging these beliefs are to women and how very selective and self-serving the male power structure was in applying them. I've mentioned that in my family's church "some" of the laws of the Old Testament were resurrected and followed, including the food laws, which were stringently enforced in our house. When in my early teens, I heard them discussing whether women should be sent away during their menses, I was terrified. Of course, they decided against it because who'd do the housework and cook the food?

Now, I've read elsewhere here that some women loved that particular law because it gave them a chance to be away from the men, the housework and hang out with the girls. That's not the point. The point is that men have the power to send women away because of a biological function or for any reason. It's beyond primitive.

[Spang]

Sarah Palin Takes Up Fencing.

It’s been a few days since the Palins learned Joe McGinniss moved in next door. Love thy neighbor as thyself, then build a fence.

“Fences make good neighbors,” promised her Facebook blog. Not sure at which of the five colleges Palin studied Robert Frost’s Mending, but I think she missed the point. Perhaps it was the, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall” part.

Within a few hours Sarah had launched a “Joe The Stalker/Pervert” campaign. Glenn Beck called for a boycott of Random House publishing, and Random House held their ground. The Paliban swarmed with comments of “stalker”, “reload”, “let’s burn it to the ground”, and “get ‘em, Todd”. The following morning the Palins super-sized their fence. The “waterin’ hole” must be defended.

Joe the Neighbor should have told Todd he was writing a book about Russia and heard he could research from his porch. He didn’t.

But why the outrage now?

The home Joe McGinniss is renting used to be an Oxford House from 2005 until 2008. The tenants were men recently released from prison who were recovering addicts. What? No fence to protect sexy Sarah in her tank top? Dear God! Who was lurking in that house watching her children play?

The Palins themselves rented the home McGinnis is staying in for six months in 2009, but weren’t interested in purchasing it. They didn’t want to spend the money. Last October they were “done with the house”. During the election, the Secret Service guarded the Palin home from the backyard now occupied by Mr. McGinnis. Here’s a hint, Sarah – if you want to dictate who lives in the house, you should have probably bought it first.

It’s predictable Palin.

Sarah has a habit of shooting down hill. One of my daughter’s friends has a black eye from shooting down hill while bear hunting. It’s not just a proverbial lesson, it’s a literal one.

Last week, she attended a funeral with her youngest daughter. I called her daughter a “human shield”. Sarah validated my metaphor with her attack on Joe McGinnis. She evoked provocative images of herself, then accuses a respected journalist of “peering” at her young daughter. “I’m hot! He’s a pervert!”

Ask David Letterman how accusations of pedophilia work out. Initially, Dave looked like he’d gone too far with his tasteless joke. But her strike back about having to protect her fourteen year old daughter from David Letterman? No one was buying her manufactured outrage. She quit three weeks later.

This week, the New York Times quoted Todd Palin, “What goes around comes around”.

I’m looking forward to Joe McGinniss’s book.

The Source (http://www.usatrends.info/shannyn-moore-sarah-palin-takes-up-fencing/1154)

[LadyLazarus]

We disagree here, because clearly, Sarah does NOT believe that motherhood and maternity are the be all and end all of a woman's life. She's not a stay-at-home mom (not that there's anything wrong with that... my mom was one), she is very active in the community, ran for public offices, and became governor of the state despite having children to raise, and you know all of that took a fair amount of time away from them. She said Todd was a huge help in enabling her to do that, as he spent a lot of time helping raise the kids too.

Yes, we disagree, but I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. I'm suggesting that her pro-life "feminism" stems from faulty logic. It stems from her inability to see herself as a discrete subject outside of her own ability to reproduce, i.e., that women are equivalent to their reproductive capacity. She refused to have an abortion when she knew she was pregnant with a child with severe mental and physical disabilities--who will no doubt live a shortened life-span and suffer severe health problems--because the child's "life" or the idea of the child's life (politics involved) was more important than her own. This is medieval thinking at its finest.

And BTW: I think the message that she's sending, that women can do it all, is actually a damaging one. Women have been told for too long that there is something wrong with them if they just want to be stay-at-home moms or if they want to just have a career because they are told by well-intentioned conservative women that they should do both. Well, the position is pretty much ridiculous because not only is it impossible to do both well, but women basically kill themselves trying to meet unreasonable expectations from two different worlds. It's the same kind of do-it-yourself conservative rhetoric that would have us all believe that if blacks just stopped thinking and acting like victims, then the world would be their oyster--a rhetoric, in other words, that denies the very real, material obstacles that exist in their lives.

Palin is a great example of this conservative lie--she professes to be a woman that can do it all and be both mother and career woman, but the reality is that her life bears little comparison to the average woman's life. The conditions that enabled her to do both, and some would argue unsuccessfully given Bristol's condition, are simply just not present for the majority of American women.

[sojourner]

I agree with you completely here. I was raised in a fundamentalist home and know first-hand how damaging these beliefs are to women and how very selective and self-serving the male power structure was in applying them. I've mentioned that in my family's church "some" of the law of the Old Testament were resurrected and followed, including the food laws, which were stringently enforced in our house. When in my early teens, I heard them discussing whether women should be sent away during their menses, I was terrified. Of course, they decided against it because who'd do the housework and cook the food?


menses? I used to belong to that organization and there are a lot of people that think I should be sent away.

[Suzan]

menses? I used to belong to that organization and there are a lot of people that think I should be sent away.
They let you in and you can't spell Mensa? :p

[sojourner]

Yes, we disagree, but I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. I'm suggesting that her pro-life "feminism" stems from faulty logic. It stems from her inability to see herself as a discrete subject outside of her own ability to reproduce, i.e., that women are equivalent to their reproductive capacity. She refused to have an abortion when she knew she was pregnant with a child with severe mental and physical disabilities--who will no doubt live a shortened life-span and suffer severe health problems--because the child's "life" or the idea of the child's life (politics involved) was more important than her own. This is medieval thinking at its finest.

And BTW: I think the message that she's sending, that women can do it all, is actually a damaging one. Women have been told for too long that there is something wrong with them if they just want to be stay-at-home moms or if they want to just have a career because they are told by well-intentioned conservative women that they should do both. Well, the position is pretty much ridiculous because not only is it impossible to do both well, but women basically kill themselves trying to meet unreasonable expectations from two different worlds. It's the same kind of do-it-yourself conservative rhetoric that would have us all believe that if blacks just stopped thinking and acting like victims, then the world would be their oyster--a rhetoric, in other words, that denies the very real, material obstacles that exist in their lives.

Palin is a great example of this conservative lie--she professes to be a woman that can do it all and be both mother and career woman, but the reality is that her life bears little comparison to the average woman's life. The conditions that enabled her to do both, and some would argue unsuccessfully given Bristol's condition, are simply just not present for the majority of American women.
Seems to me that Palin is a feminist that just happens to be pro-life and that is driving liberal feminists crazy. It is against the rules.

[samurai007]

Yes, we disagree, but I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. I'm suggesting that her pro-life "feminism" stems from faulty logic. It stems from her inability to see herself as a discrete subject outside of her own ability to reproduce, i.e., that women are equivalent to their reproductive capacity. She refused to have an abortion when she knew she was pregnant with a child with severe mental and physical disabilities--who will no doubt live a shortened life-span and suffer severe health problems--because the child's "life" or the idea of the child's life (politics involved) was more important than her own. This is medieval thinking at its finest.

And BTW: I think the message that she's sending, that women can do it all, is actually a damaging one. Women have been told for too long that there is something wrong with them if they just want to be stay-at-home moms or if they want to just have a career because they are told by well-intentioned conservative women that they should do both. Well, the position is pretty much ridiculous because not only is it impossible to do both well, but women basically kill themselves trying to meet unreasonable expectations from two different worlds. It's the same kind of do-it-yourself conservative rhetoric that would have us all believe that if blacks just stopped thinking and acting like victims, then the world would be their oyster--a rhetoric, in other words, that denies the very real, material obstacles that exist in their lives.

Palin is a great example of this conservative lie--she professes to be a woman that can do it all and be both mother and career woman, but the reality is that her life bears little comparison to the average woman's life. The conditions that enabled her to do both, and some would argue unsuccessfully given Bristol's condition, are simply just not present for the majority of American women.

It's not that she can't separate herself from her ability to reproduce, it's that she separates herself from the child that was growing inside her... she saw it not as some mere extension of herself, to be removed if it was inconvenient, but a whole other person, deserving of the rights and consideration due another living person. I'd hardly call that "medieval thinking", but rather compassion for another human being, her son, to be specific.

I have not heard her say women must do it all. She did, and she had help from her husband and from the older siblings, but that doesn't mean she thinks it should be every woman's life. In fact, I recall her praising stay home moms in one of her speeches a while ago, and saying she wished she had been able to spend more time with her kids.

As for the conservative rhetoric about believing in yourself and having confidence, to keep trying even when others try to push you down, and if you do so, you are more likely to succeed than if you don;'t try because "the world is against me", it's true of everyone... men and women, blacks, whites, and every other race. It's like the old saying, "winners never quit, and quitters never win".

[LadyLazarus]

Seems to me that Palin is a feminist that just happens to be pro-life and that is driving liberal feminists crazy. It is against the rules.

I'm technically a liberal feminist, and it doesn't drive me crazy. Like I said, she's confused on some basic level, which means her thinking is often muddled. But I respect that her heart is in the right place.

[LadyLazarus]

It's not that she can't separate herself from her ability to reproduce, it's that she separates herself from the child that was growing inside her... she saw it not as some mere extension of herself, to be removed if it was inconvenient, but a whole other person, deserving of the rights and consideration due another living person. I'd hardly call that "medieval thinking", but rather compassion for another human being, her son, to be specific.

Again, you are making my point for me. That's exactly why it's medieval thinking. Because she cannot divorce her own identity from her ability to reproduce. It's precisely because the fetus is not part of herself, that is, someone else's life, that she feels a duty and obligation to place that life above her own. It is a mentality that places the obligation to reproduce life above those who produce it. It is a mentality that believes women exist to be mothers and create lives other than their own. Women don't exist for the sake of their fetuses and they certainly don't exist to reproduce the species. They exist for their own sake.

Feminism is about advocating for the political, economic, and social equality for women. It has NOTHING to do with advocating for the political, economic, and social equality of children, babies, or fetuses. I'm not saying the latter issue isn't important or is any less noble, but I am saying that whatever it is, it is NOT feminism. The term "Pro-life-," or should I say "pro-fetus-," feminism is oxymoronic.

[foxyladi]

I think she is learning..:D

[Suzan]

Seems to me that Palin is a feminist that just happens to be pro-life and that is driving liberal feminists crazy. It is against the rules.
Why is it that people always want to think those on the other side of the issue are being driven crazy? I see it everywhere. I've done it myself. Politics really does bring out the best and the worst instincts in people, mostly the worst.

Palin's pro-life stance doesn't drive me crazy and I supported her in spite of it, but it saddens me that she doesn't see the damage to women and that she perpetuates this kind of thinking to the girls and young women who are heavily influenced by her. I don't think she has any idea what kind of damage she's doing and I'm beginning to doubt that she cares, although she did admit that she got a glimpse of what women go through when she learned of Trig's Downs Syndrome and considered abortion.

I say this knowing it's going to anger Palin supporters, but it appears to me that she is either unable or unwilling to look beyond the surface of an issue and examine it more fully, including her own beliefs--and that applies to almost any issue I've heard her comment on. She's not a deep thinker.

[sojourner]

Why is it that people always want to think those on the other side of the issue are being driven crazy? I see it everywhere. I've done it myself. Politics really does bring out the best and the worst instincts in people, mostly the worst.

Has anyone ever suggested that you're too literal?

[sojourner]

Palin's pro-life stance doesn't drive me crazy and I supported her in spite of it, but it saddens me that she doesn't see the damage to women and that she perpetuates this kind of thinking to the girls and young women who are heavily influenced by her. I don't think she has any idea what kind of damage she's doing and I'm beginning to doubt that she cares, although she did admit that she got a glimpse of what women go through when she learned of Trig's Downs Syndrome and considered abortion.

I say this knowing it's going to anger Palin supporters, but it appears to me that she is either unable or unwilling to look beyond the surface of an issue and examine it more fully, including her own beliefs--and that applies to almost any issue I've heard her comment on. She's not a deep thinker.

I see her out empowering women and your stance here seems a bit disingenuous since very discussion on feminism here seems to always boil down to abortion. Seems to be a litmus test that you have to pass to be a feminist.

What saddens me is that we have approximately 3,700 abortions per day in this country. You don't think that takes a toll on the women having them?

[Suzan]

I see her out empowering women and your stance here seems a bit disingenuous since very discussion on feminism here seems to always boil down to abortion. Seems to be a litmus test that you have to pass to be a feminist.

Not in her view--and when it comes to Litmus tests, the Republicans are the pros.

What saddens me is that we have approximately 3,700 abortions per day in this country. You don't think that takes a toll on the women having them?

Of course it does.

[sojourner]

Not in her view--and when it comes to Litmus tests, the Republicans are the pros. The old they are just as bad as we are defense.

[LadyLazarus]

I see her out empowering women and your stance here seems a bit disingenuous since very discussion on feminism here seems to always boil down to abortion. Seems to be a litmus test that you have to pass to be a feminist.

No, it's actually conservative women themselves who have made abortion the central issue of their "feminism" by creating groups like Feminists For Life and the retarded Susan B. Anthony List. Both groups' bogus claims on feminism stem from their titular pro-life position.


What saddens me is that we have approximately 3,700 abortions per day in this country. You don't think that takes a toll on the women having them?

Again, this is more conservative, essentialist, muddled thinking. Women are not a homogeneous group. Abortion only takes a toll on those women, who like Palin, cannot divorce their own identity from that of the fetus inside of them. Some women have no trouble doing this; others who are caught in a time warp, have a lot of trouble with it. Either way, the government doesn't have the right to legislate women's right to biological privacy away from them, and certaintly not to protect the interest of another group--namely fetuses.

[sojourner]

What saddens me is that we have approximately 3,700 abortions per day in this country. You don't think that takes a toll on the women having them?


Again, this is more conservative, essentialist, muddled thinking. Women are not a homogeneous group. Abortion only takes a toll on those women, who like Palin, cannot divorce their own identity from that of the fetus inside of them. Some women have no trouble doing this; others who are caught in a time warp, have a lot of trouble with it. Either way, the government doesn't have the right to legislate women's right to biological privacy away from them, and certaintly not to protect the interest of another group--namely fetuses.

You really believe that only conservative women agonize over having an abortion? And that human life is being destroyed should not be a consideration? My comment had nothing to do with the government or laws. Is that the only lens through which you can view abortion?

[Suzan]

The old they are just as bad as we are defense.
I offered it as information, not a defense.

[LadyLazarus]

You really believe that only conservative women agonize over having an abortion? And that human life is being destroyed should not be a consideration? My comment had nothing to do with the government or laws. Is that the only lens through which you can view abortion?

I really don't understand this comment at all. I never said only conservative women agonize over abortion. I said women aren't homogeneous and that suggesting they are is a form of essentialist thinking that injures women. Some women suffer no repercussions from having an abortion; other women suffer many. But it is logically invalid to use the basis of some women's experience as if it were representative of all women's experience with abortion.

And every debate on abortion always goes back to the government and law because it is always a question of government and law.

My philosophical view is that a fetus commandeers a woman's body. Often times the fetus has the consent of a woman to do this. But no entity has the right to commandeer any individual's body without their consent. It makes no difference if the fetus represents potential life or that the fetus does all of this without volition. It also makes no difference that this occupation is a temporary one. All that matters is that to force a woman to keep a pregnancy is to violate her essential right to biological privacy and self-determination. If a woman does not have these basic rights, then she is a slave, both literally and figuratively, to her reproduction. In fact, the most common use for female slaves on plantations was breeding more slaves. The female slave's uterus was a piece of chattel exploited to make more slaves that her master ultimately owned. It is precisely when women are viewed as less-than-human that their individual rights and needs become secondary to their capacity to reproduce. Thus the legality or illegality of abortion becomes any nation's primary means by which it indicates the status of women in its society.

My personal views differ radically from my intellectual view, but when I am considering the rights of women, I cannot argue from my own personal feelings. I must argue from a position of logic. And it is precisely because my personal feelings differ from my philosophical view that I can understand where Palin comes from, even if I can't support her position.

[sojourner]

And every debate on abortion always goes back to the government and law because it is always a question of government and law. Yes, that seems to be where the feminist movement is focused. But roe v. Wade is the law of the land and is not going to be changed. Both sides know that but bring it up anyway to frighten their base. We have 3,700 abortions per day in this country and I think we all agree that is not a good thing. All I am suggesting is that maybe feminist groups could focus some of their energy on reducing the number of abortions instead of it all going into a debate on government and law. I think all that can be said on that subject has already been said multiple times.

[LadyLazarus]

Yes, that seems to be where the feminist movement is focused. But roe v. Wade is the law of the land and is not going to be changed. Both sides know that but bring it up anyway to frighten their base. We have 3,700 abortions per day in this country and I think we all agree that is not a good thing. All I am suggesting is that maybe feminist groups could focus some of their energy on reducing the number of abortions instead of it all going into a debate on government and law. I think all that can be said on that subject has already been said multiple times.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but that makes no difference if states are enacting laws to slowly chip-away at hard won reproductive freedoms. If Oklahoma, by fining and locking up doctors for not submitting forms on women's abortions, prevents doctors from providing the service, then it doesn't matter if it is technically legal for women to get one in Oklahoma. The war on abortion is being fought in the trenches, state by state, and it is becoming a war fought through government bureaucracy. See the recent Florida legislation for further confirmation of this.

Actually, I don't agree it's not a good thing and I get tired of the politically correct rhetoric surrounding it. I don't think it's a good thing or a bad thing. I don't moralize facts. The statistics don't say anything about the conditions that precipitated any of those events, so they essentially tell us nothing about abortion at all.

And why would feminist groups want to reduce abortions? Suggesting that they need to be reduced is saying in some way that there is something wrong with abortion. That it's some kind of criminal or nefarious activity. But it's not. I can't tell you how many women I know who have secretly told me an abortion saved their life, both literally and figuratively. Abortion represents for most feminists their reproductive freedom, and I hardly think any of them wants that freedom curtailed.

[sojourner]

roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but that makes no difference if states are enacting laws to slowly chip-away at hard won reproductive freedoms. If oklahoma, by fining and locking up doctors for not submitting forms on women's abortions, prevents doctors from providing the service, then it doesn't matter if it is technically legal for women to get one in oklahoma. The war on abortion is being fought in the trenches, state by state, and it is becoming a war fought through government bureaucracy. See the recent florida legislation for further confirmation of this.

Actually, i don't agree it's not a good thing and i get tired of the politically correct rhetoric surrounding it. I don't think it's a good thing or a bad thing. I don't moralize facts. The statistics don't say anything about the conditions that precipitated any of those events, so they essentially tell us nothing about abortion at all.

And why would feminist groups want to reduce abortions? Suggesting that they need to be reduced is saying in some way that there is something wrong with abortion. That it's some kind of criminal or nefarious activity. But it's not. I can't tell you how many women i know who have secretly told me an abortion saved their life, both literally and figuratively. Abortion represents for most feminists their reproductive freedom, and i hardly think any of them wants that freedom curtailed.
wow!

[LadyLazarus]

wow!

Double wow!

[sojourner]

Double wow!

Finally! Something that we agree on :)

[foxyladi]

Finally! Something that we agree on :)

:thumbsup::thumbsup:this calls for a group hug.we really need that smiley

[Valin]

that could be turned around to say 'spang's strange, unprofessional and paranoid grudge'.

well put!

[Suzan]

Finally! Something that we agree on :)

Me, too. That was an excellent post from Lady L. :thumbsup:

[Spang]

I just tweeted this at Sarah Palin:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Loompy/TweetToSarahPalin.png

[Valin]

I think it's very disturbing. I have a generally favorable impression of Joe McGinnis's work, but really, is he a journalist or the paparazzi?

I recall reading his Going to Extremes and liking it quite a bit.