Once the initial defensiveness re: Palin dies down... - Page 5

And, of course, as has been noted here and elsewhere, it's becoming increasingly evident that McCain picked Palin abruptly, with little or no vetting. In what is traditionally considered "the first important decision a presidential candidate makes", McCain just kinda winged it.

That's in keeping with what we know about the man-- deliberative, he is not. How's that going to work out when a President McCain is confronted by an international crisis, as he inevitably will be? Will he listen to his advisors, take the time to weigh his options? Or will he grow impatient with all the tedious grown-up nonsense and swing for the fences, because that's what gets his blood moving and it "feels good"? Maybe he can check in with Palin-- "Hey Sarah, whaddya think? Should I just go ahead and bomb the shit out of the little fucker?" And Palin can say "Hell, yeah, big daddy! It'll be like shootin' moose from a chopper!"

Since McCain seems to have trouble keeping basic facts about the world stage in mind, doesn't that seem a little scary?

Please explain how this is so.

Personally, I think this smells like a non sequitur.

If a "learned" proponent of abstinence who is now a VP candidate of a major party blows teaching her own daughter about not getting pregnant through abstinence it means it sucks as a viable birth control method.

Gee...that's not a very difficult connection to make. It says a lot to deliberately miss it.

I have to agree. One anecdote doesn't show anything about the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education. What shows its ineffectiveness are the studies that show it's ineffective.

You're joking, right?

The most powerful woman in Alaska, who happens to have been chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republican Party promotes abstinence only education. She presumably teaches her daughter that abstinence is the only option for contraception. She doesn't teach her about condoms. She opposes birth control.

What do you think is going to happen?

If a highly religious, college educated "super-mom" with a great income and none of the social problems the right wing likes to associate with teen pregnancy can't get her daughter to keep her legs shut, and refuses to teach her how to be more responsible in case she fails to do so, then what do you think would happen to teen pregnancy around the country if this woman's ideas were forced upon even more public schools?

Are you saying she's simply a bad parent, and that the average American is a better parent?

I don't understand how you can't see the point here.

I have a ten year-old daughter. And I'm teaching her that abstinance is the best option. But she will also damn-well know what a condom is for and that no one, not me, not her mother, not anyone should have sex without using a condom unless they are trying to have a child and know that the father has been tested for disease.

She will understand why, physiologically, it is necessary to use a condom. She will know the proper way condoms should be used, and that using more than one doesn't decrease risk, but increases the risk of breakage.

She will know why it's not just about pregnancy, but about disease. She will know the effects of the various diseases so that she knows without a doubt how important this is.

Do you not agree that the above is what every child should learn?

If there's something that every child should learn, generally we teach it in school. If it's not taught in school, there's a risk that the parents get it wrong, or fail to teach it at all. As happened to unfortunate Bristol Palin. She wasn't taught. So she suffers.

Some reading material:

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122967.html

There is an article claiming that the McCain vetting team didn't read the Alaska newspaper files on Palin, which is almost step one in any research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122823.html

All of this is beginning to fall apart real fast.

you wish and "chope" (change and hope for her support to fall apart)........my money is on .she staying , time will tell, she will persist or hurt the ticket, i think she helps.
we'll see...... both tickets have to show their value to the majority of voters

How on Earth can she help unless people are reckless and ignorant about her qualifications, and dismissive of her incredibly poor judgment? A person who has made decisions such as those made by Sarah Palin doesn't belong managing the smallest public department, much less the Vice Presidency, and potentially the entire country, including the military.

it isn't just that abstinence only doesn't work -- its that the alternative does.

Sorry, I missed the underlying presupposition that having babies is bad, even maybe the end of the world.

OMG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIwpg_QsYnc

"What's a better job, Bristol, fisherman or mayor?"
"Mayor"
"No. Say Fisherman!"

Granted, it's possible it's a fake... likely even, I'd say.

No, getting pregnant when an unmarried teen is only bad if you're black and poor. Doing it when you're white and affluent is fun!

Is sex out of wedlock ok by you, suddenly? Is a 16 year-old having sex ok by you? Is a 17 year-old having a baby ok by you?

We're not saying having babies is bad.

We're saying a 17 year-old having a baby is bad.
We're saying a 17 year-old forced into marriage is bad.
We're saying a 16 year-old having unprotected sex is bad.

Or did you miss those details?

Ugh. I think all this "real america" bullshit helps her out.

Zing!

It certainly isn't an ideal situation (unmarried, 17-year old). No question about that. The end of the world (which one would guess from some of the reactions seen here)? No.



First it isn't abstinence period, it's abstinence outside of a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship. This is based on the belief that engaging in sexual relations outside of that context brings a variety of serious psychological, relational, emotional and physical risks and, therefore, the absolutely best approach is to abstain from this activity until a person is in a committed, long-term monogamous relationship. And finally, that holding to all of this, then turning around giving them a way to easily and (almost) risklessly engage in sexual relations outside of that context makes a total mockery of the previous position, creates a moral hazard situation and encourages the behavior which carries these risks.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

P.S. The way to de-politicize all of this is to let parents teach their own kids what they think is best and for everyone else to butt the hell out.

Well, Barack says they are "punishment."


I think that the lesson in this episode is being unwittingly made by many of you around here.
This thing with the Palin daughter is a mess. And what could have been done to avoid this mess? Duh... Abstinence. It works 100% of the times it is tried.

Just look at the hell that descends when it isn't practiced, especially when there is political advantage to be made from an unwed teenage pregnancy. Ironically, some of the very people who scream from the rooftops about the privacy rights of girls who want to kill their babies, are the very ones who are taking full advantage of this particular situation. How tidy.

All that being said... what a fscking bonehead thing for McMoron to do. Just beyond senseless, especially re: evangelicals and the like. Or it might be a rope-a-dope, to get the Kos set railing on a woman, her family, and values, etc. I think that's one of the reasons that BHO is RUNNING from this, at least in his statements. Surrogates are handling this nicely.

It's interesting that it seems to work like this:

Person A: "Don't do X, if you do Y and Z may happen."
Person B does X. Y and/or Z happen.
Person C: "Person A is an idiot."

First, why are you refering to a sitting Senator and candidate for President by his first name?

Second, abstinence is more effectively taught in mixed sex education programs, ones opposed by Palin.

You aren't paying enough attention. The political benefit here is to Palin, since the fundy crowd is eating up the fact that her daughter didn't get an abortion. To them she can do no wrong, so they conveniently forget that they normally blame the unwed teenage mother's parents...

Oh, and fetuses aren't babies.

No it is more like:

Person A tells the world that abstinence only education works.
Person B is Person A's child and gets pregnant after getting the best abstinence only education in the world.
Person C thinks Person A is an idiot, rightfully.

Or more precisely...

Person A: "Don't do X, if you do Y and Z may happen."
Person B does X. Y and/or Z happen.
Person C: "Person A is an idiot. Here, let's go 'take care of this'..."
Person B: "But what if person A finds out?"
Person C: "We've taken care of that. It's none of their business. It's Person A's fault anyway..."

I'm really lost on this whole Person A, Person B thing.

Because I can. I just finished reading "Rules for Radicals" and "Steal this Book."
I'm sticking it to The Man.


Hmmmm... explicit sex ed is not the answer, neither is abstinence only. This is a great issue for local control, don't you agree?

Palin announced her daughter was pregnant, so I'm not sure what privacy has to do with it. Anyone here flying up to Alaska and peeping into any bedroom windows? Unless Michelle Malkin gets involved, that seems unlikely.

How does any of this have anything to do to with privacy rights for women seeking abortions? Are you saying that, if we believe in that, we are now obliged to avert our eyes and pretend we don't know what Palin has told us?

And how is anyone "taking full advantage"? We're discussing the ramifications.

As far as Obama's stance, perhaps he thinks families should be off-limits, as he has said. I know it's not possible for the man to have an honest, decent reaction in your book, but it seems conceivable, to me.

Sorry, man. I looked at my son's face at 22 weeks.
That was most definitely a human baby.

As local as you can fucking get.

All schools should be required to offer a full mixed sex ed program.

Parents should be obliged to explicitly request that their child be removed from the parts that offend their sensibilities. These students should be given OTHER health education curriculum.

This way parents get exactly what they want.

As far as science is concerned that 22 week old fetus is a non-viable framework for a human baby. nothing more nothing less. It isn't a baby until it is born.

And it wasn't your son's face... it was a computer generated rendition of depth soundings...

Don't forget Ashcroft. He wrote the book on such things.


I think his response to both the faux-pregnancy-coverup and the daughter thing as been rather decent, IMHO. He did take the high road. There is no need for him to take the low road. There are plenty of people on the left to do it, regardless of what he says. So personally, yes, he did have a decent reaction and did issue what I think is a rather laudable warning to people in his organization.

Not really interested in wasting time on this. He had a name, a heartbeat, a room in our house, and we had his first picture on the fridge. You don't like that? I don't really care what you think.

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Wow. We completely agree on that.

Agreed. There isn't anything Obama can do about what someone wants to put on the internet, any more than John McCain is tarred by the next poster at LGF who happily fantasizes about Michelle Obama being raped and killed.

It would be nice, however, if the McCain camp would quite insinuating that the Palin maternity rumor came from the Obama campaign. While snidely belittling same for "playing politics" during a national crisis. I imagine they're kinda bummed, over there at McCain HQ, that Gustav didn't give their man a better platform for a do-over.

Palin opposes abortion even in her own daughter were brutally raped.

This is the kind of nutcase that's a fall off the stairmaster away from assuming the Presidency?

I couldn't care either way, really. You see, I lack a great deal of normal human emotional responses; I am fairly autistic in that regard. I lack empathy almost complete and unless I can intellectually attach onto some sort of response, I don't understand "normal" human connections to things. That is my fate.

Now, your wife's fetus may represent the hope of some future child, but it isn't a baby. A computer generated image doesn't represent it any more than your dreams of throwing catch with it when it is older. People do strange things, they keep rooms of deceased children undisturbed for years, but this, just like your baby room, doesn't make that child any more alive and real. In your defense, sure, there is a footlong mass of cells in the shape of a human baby represented in that picture, but it doesn't have functional lungs, has an utterly incomplete nervous system, no sensory perception etc. It simply isn't a baby. It is more like a baby shaped jelly fish.

A 22 week premie, on very rare occasions (I'm not sure what the percentages are, but I think it's less than 1%) will survive. A baby that survives the initial months I believe is pretty much certain to have significant impairments.

Typically though, a 22 week premie is so small that that a breathing tube can't be put down their throat.

Without saying too much I have seen the face of a baby before 22 weeks and that's a real baby. Obviously not viable but all the same ... a baby to me.


And before you savage me as a fundamentalist paleocon ... I'm pro-choice.