Palin Derangement Syndrome

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think my point is that we accept some deaths because the cost of preventing them is simply too great. In my opinion, a similar logic should apply to the abortion question.

There is no such thing as "abortion rights" in the US Constitution.....the USSC ruling only leverages the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment...this same court had ruled against civil liberties post Civil War (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson). The court has also ruled on limits for fetus viability except in the case of a mother's health. Abortion, once illegal in both Canada and the USA, is not an inalienable right. The economic reasons for abortion wins the day, and was the precursor for wider and even more economic enabling contraception (e.g. "The Pill"). So yes, you are correct in asserting that we have developed an acceptable level of death, from conception to the nursing home.

[WIP]

I guess maybe that's the point, WIP.

"Lesser" women "straining" under the effort? You view women as the weaker sex who need help from the State.

Sarah Palin got on with her life and she generally views the government in Washington as more of a hindrance than a help.

Many women seem to find her model of being able to "do it all" out of reach. If she can do it all, great! But listening to her talk about herself and her family is like listening to rich motivational speakers bragging about how they became millionaires, and the "everyone who works hard, can do it" message carries the implied message that if you can't attain your financial goals, you're either too stupid or lazy to become successful like them. Sarah Palin's example of juggling high political office while raising five children would go down easier if she wasn't against programs created to assist working mothers who are feeling strained and overburdened by the effort!

[BC_chick]

That's kind of the same point too, BC Chick.

Palin seems to have chosen her husband well - and maybe other women (and men) should also choose their partner carefully. The State (certainly not the federal government) is not there to clean up our mistakes in life. If it attempts to do this, it first just encourages more bad choices. But second, it also gives a false sense of security. Eventually, it can't provide complete security. Lastly, the State causes so many other problems unless its activities are narrowly directed.

Rather than talk political philosophy, Palin is an individualist who has chosen to make her own life her own way. Like an adult, she assumes responsibility for her choices.

Well, here is the problem with the individualist approach in a modern society, August.

For those 'unwise' men and women who did not find their perfect partner at the ripe old age group of 17-22, there is a current system which favours men. The man (in most cases) goes on to visit the kids on the weekends while building his career, and the woman is left to raise the children while trying to juggle a career at the same time.

If you really want to promote building stronger relationships and being more careful when/with whom women should have children, why promote the tried and failed method of abstinence over sex-education?

If Palin were pro sex-education and anti-abortion, okay, that's a little more understandable. But asking women to abstain until they are mature enough to find the right partner, otherwise face the consequences of bearing the overwhelming responsibility of raising the children, is many things - but it is NOT feminist. Reason being that it requires women to forego their natural sexual instincts. We've come too far to back there.

Edited September 20, 2008 by BC_chick

[August1991]

If you really want to promote building stronger relationships and being more careful when/with whom women should have children, why promote the tried and failed method of abstinence over sex-education?

Sex education? I think everyone can agree that the way to build better realtionships is if people make better choices. And that's something people themselves have to do.

I'm not certain how State insurance for failed relationships encourages people to seek out better partners. If anything, it does the opposite.

And BC chick, please don't paint me into the stereotypical, mean-spirited Right Wing corner. Some people, through no choice of their own, are born in difficult circumstances. If we are a civilized society, we should collectively help them.

I'm sorry if I sound cruel but but many women (and men) in their forties and fifties today have no children and they haven't even managed to find a suitable partner to live with for any length of time. Having made various mistakes in their life, they now expect the State to step in and take care of them in their old age. When she's an old woman, Sarah Palin OTOH will have 5 children and many grandchildren looking out for her interests.

Trust the State if you want but it's possibly not a wise move. I think Palin has a better handle on the situation.

But asking women to abstain until they are mature enough to find the right partner, otherwise face the consequences of bearing the overwhelming responsibility of raising the children, is many things - but it is NOT feminist. Reason being that it require women to forego their natural sexual instincts. We've come too far to back there.

Choices, and teh consequences of choices, have existed for far longer than Sarah Palin or even the US. Even three year olds know where the chocolate is hidden and that a hot stove is dangerous to touch.

If you think that you have found some magical way to remove the bad consquences of bad choices, you are sorely mistaken.

----

The freedom to choose is a wonderful thing. But choice also means forgoing other, possibly better, alternatives.

Edited September 20, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

There's a possibility that the Democratic Party, in a last ditch effort, is going to wheel out this argument as we get closer to November.

There are a number of Supreme Court Justices who are not likely to make it another four years.

Roe vs. Wade has survived a Reagan presidency and two Bush presidencies. Abortion is part of the US Constitution and no one is talking about a constitutional amendment. In the unlikely event that a future Supreme Court were to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the abortion question would be left up to individual states (and frankly, that's where I think it should be anyway).

The decision survived because there was not enough conservative judges.

Bear in mind that the USA Today is presenting the worst case scenario.

In the best case scenario, there would probably be a few states where abortion would be illegal.

[Shady]

In the best case scenario, there would probably be a few states where abortion would be illegal.

Yes, it's called Federalism.

[jdobbin]

Yes, it's called Federalism.

Oh boy, can't wait.

[BC_chick]

And BC chick, please don't paint me into the stereotypical, mean-spirited Right Wing corner. Some people, through no choice of their own, are born in difficult circumstances. If we are a civilized society, we should collectively help them.

I'm sorry if I sound cruel but but many women (and men) in their forties and fifties today have no children and they haven't even managed to find a suitable partner to live with for any length of time. Having made various mistakes in their life, they now expect the State to step in and take care of them in their old age. When she's an old woman, Sarah Palin OTOH will have 5 children and many grandchildren looking out for her interests.

Trust the State if you want but it's possibly not a wise move. I think Palin has a better handle on the situation.

Now we're getting into a whole other debate. I happen to disagree with your position, but for the sake of remaining on the subject at hand, I digress to my earlier point about Sarah Palin and feminism.

Believing that women need to bear children in order to support future generations is many things, but it is in no shape or form a feminist position. On the contrary, it is a very traditional and patriarchal point of view.

[August1991]

Oh boy, can't wait.

Assuming this ever gets to the Supreme Court, and assuming the Supreme Court overturns categorically a previous decision (most unlikely), the only thing that would happen is that abortion would become illegal in some 10 or so states.

Heck, it's impossible to get an abortion in PEI and many NB and NS women travel to Quebec because it's easier. (This is partly a problem of waiting lists. I digress.)

The decision survived because there was not enough conservative judges.

That's the *scary, scary* fraud the Democrats in desperation may bring out in the next few weeks. If they do, it's an indication of a probable loss.

The President doesn't decide abortion policy. Anyone appointed to teh Supreme Court must pass through Congress. Once named to the Supreme Court, justices have a mind of their own. The constitutional law of abortion has been settled for over 30 years. Roe vs. Wade has survived various Republican pro-life presidents.

No one is suggesting a constitutional amendment forbidding abortion so, worst case scenario, it would become a state issue. Some 20 states are on record as approving the freedom to choose.

----

The Dems may use this as a scare tactic to bring independent women voters back to Obama. I predict that it won't work but it might make McCain and Palin uncomfortable. If teh Dems want to make this election a referendum on abortion, they might be surprised to find themselves in the position of Dion. Canadian boomers don't care about the environment when the stock market appears to be melting.

[BC_chick]

That's the *scary, scary* fraud the Democrats in desperation may bring out in the next few weeks.

Have you not heard the fear-mongering about the world that awaits us if Obama gets elected? There are numerous 'prophetic' books on the bestseller list as we speak, including Obamanation. Same phenomenon is going on in Canada about what would happen if Dion wins.

Why is it only 'scary scary scary' if left-wingers share their self-perceived clairvoyance? Do right-wingers have some sort of fool-proof crystal-ball I wasn't aware of?

Edited September 21, 2008 by BC_chick

[August1991]

Now we're getting into a whole other debate. I happen to disagree with your position, but for the sake of remaining on the subject at hand, I digress to my earlier point about Sarah Palin and feminism.

Believing that women need to bear children in order to support future generations is many things, but it is in no shape or form a feminist position. On the contrary, it is a very traditional and patriarchal point of view.

I'm not saying that women must bear children to support anonymous future generations. I'm saying that men and women must have good relationships (so that they can take care of themselves into old age) and raise good children (so that they have their children's help when they are old and possibly infirm).

I'm looking at this in crudely practical terms. Some people make good choices and manage to organize their life so that they have a good, honest spouse who loves them and cares for them, and they have children, grandchildren or at least nieces and nephews, who care about them. Such people will have someone around when they are old and possibly too confused to take care of themselves.

Anyone who trusts the State to perform a similar role is naive or foolish. To negotiate today's bureaucracy, you need a strong-willed advocate, savvy with the Internet. Imagine what it will require in 2025.

[jdobbin]

Assuming this ever gets to the Supreme Court, and assuming the Supreme Court overturns categorically a previous decision (most unlikely), the only thing that would happen is that abortion would become illegal in some 10 or so states.

Wishful thinking on your part. One more judge and a wave of challenges are very likely if you have read any legal journals on the issue of abortion.

Heck, it's impossible to get an abortion in PEI and many NB and NS women travel to Quebec because it's easier. (This is partly a problem of waiting lists. I digress.)

It is a combination of a shortage of doctors most certainly in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. PEI doesn't make abortion illegal but they don't have hospitals that perform any but will pay for it in Nova Scotia if performed in a hospital with two referrals. The referrals might be illegal and there is a challenge in place.

That's the *scary, scary* fraud the Democrats in desperation may bring out in the next few weeks. If they do, it's an indication of a probable loss.

Please. Give it a rest.

A Conservative judge has a lot of implications for court cases including abortion. As soon as a majority of judges are in place, Roe versus Wade will be reviewed. It is what every expert in the legal field says.

So you can take the sloganeering and the reassurances that no changes are coming and put them in the place where they belong. A more conservative court will mean changes.

If women want abortion to be legal nationally, they can not, should not vote for two anti-abortion, pro-life candidates.

The President doesn't decide abortion policy. Anyone appointed to teh Supreme Court must pass through Congress. Once named to the Supreme Court, justices have a mind of their own. The constitutional law of abortion has been settled for over 30 years. Roe vs. Wade has survived various Republican pro-life presidents.

There have simply not been enough conservative judges on the bench. Republicans don't make that mistake any more about appointing someone who can't be depended on.

No one is suggesting a constitutional amendment forbidding abortion so, worst case scenario, it would become a state issue. Some 20 states are on record as approving the freedom to choose.

Not much of a reassurance to many people who want a national standard.

The Dems may use this as a scare tactic to bring independent women voters back to Obama. I predict that it won't work but it might make McCain and Palin uncomfortable. If teh Dems want to make this election a referendum on abortion, they might be surprised to find themselves in the position of Dion. Canadian boomers don't care about the environment when the stock market appears to be melting.

I predict your reassurances are meaningless if not backed up by a commitment on the part of the Republican ticket not to deny women in some parts of the country a choice over their own bodies. Washing rightists hands of it and saying it is state issue won't fly.

[CANADIEN]

Those who think that the legal landscape regarding abortion is unlikely to change if McCain hts elected shouldn't be saying that to pro-choicers. They should say that to those on the religious right that were fleeing McCain but are now flocking in back in drove because Palin is on the ticket. Those who make opposition to Roe vs Wade the litmus test of which politicians deserve their vote. Those who salivate at the thought of another liberal judge going away and being replaced by an ultra-conservative. They seem to believe that a Republican victory will bring them what they want.

Edited September 21, 2008 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Well, here is the problem with the individualist approach in a modern society, August.

For those 'unwise' men and women who did not find their perfect partner at the ripe old age group of 17-22, there is a current system which favours men. The man (in most cases) goes on to visit the kids on the weekends while building his career, and the woman is left to raise the children while trying to juggle a career at the same time.

There is a disparity there, for certain. However, I think many people, regardless of their stance on abortion access, would argue that abortion is not the only remedy to that situation.

I think the mere existence of abortion provides men with a psychological get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to sexual responsibility and parental responsibilities. It becomes much too easy for men to just wash their hands of the whole thing, while the woman never gets to wash her hands of the whole thing whichever she chooses.

If you really want to promote building stronger relationships and being more careful when/with whom women should have children, why promote the tried and failed method of abstinence over sex-education? If Palin were pro sex-education and anti-abortion, okay, that's a little more understandable.

Tried and failed? As far as I know, abstinence is a 100% effective method of birth control.

In reference to Palin specifically, it's been shown that she has not attempted to block sex education, did not attempt to restrict it to abstinence-only, and specifically said she was in favor of educating about condoms. She also dramatically increased government support for Covenant House, an organization that assists teenage mothers.

I'd think that would be the sort of stance people would support regardless of their position on abortion access.

If I were premier or governor of some hypothetical piece of land, one of the things on my agenda would be to provide assistance to women who make the "other" choice. Enhancing enforcement of child support, expanding availability of daycare, especially for students, offering incentives for employers to help accommodate employees with children, that sort of thing. I'd also take every possible legal step to remove anything resembling parental rights from fathers of children conceived through rape.

But asking women to abstain until they are mature enough to find the right partner, otherwise face the consequences of bearing the overwhelming responsibility of raising the children, is many things - but it is NOT feminist. Reason being that it requires women to forego their natural sexual instincts. We've come too far to back there.

It is possible to have a fulfilling sex life without risking pregnancy. (PM me if you're interested in some pointers.)

-k

[August1991]

In reference to Palin specifically, it's been shown that she has not attempted to block sex education, did not attempt to restrict it to abstinence-only, and specifically said she was in favor of educating about condoms. She also dramatically increased government support for Covenant House, an organization that assists teenage mothers.

If we were looking at the truth, this would be known. But truth is the first casualty of war, and a political campaign. In the American MSM, Palin is a radical anti-abortionist. In fact. she's not.

Now then, if the Dems want to run this election as a referendum on abortion, they will find themselves in the same position as Dion who wanted to run a campaign on the environment.

When the stock market is extremely volatile and Amerian boomers don't know what their house is worth (but consider its value to be half of their retirement savings), no one cares about abortion or a black president or the environment. They want reassurance.

Edited September 21, 2008 by August1991

[BC_chick]

There is a disparity there, for certain. However, I think many people, regardless of their stance on abortion access, would argue that abortion is not the only remedy to that situation.

I think the mere existence of abortion provides men with a psychological get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to sexual responsibility and parental responsibilities. It becomes much too easy for men to just wash their hands of the whole thing, while the woman never gets to wash her hands of the whole thing whichever she chooses.

I did not make abortion my only argument. I discussed promoting sex-education and birth-control instead of abstinence in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and by extension abortions.

Given our track record under those very same conditions, I fail to see how banning abortion and not discussing birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies. We are ultimately human beings with sexual urges.

Tried and failed? As far as I know, abstinence is a 100% effective method of birth control.

Aren't you clever for that little deflection. Or maybe you really didn't understand and maybe you're not that clever?

Anyway, obviously I was saying promoting abstinence does not work in preventing people from having sex (as opposed to unwanted pregnancies). If it did, Sarah Palin's own daughter wouldn't be pregnant, now would she?

In reference to Palin specifically, it's been shown that she has not attempted to block sex education, did not attempt to restrict it to abstinence-only, and specifically said she was in favor of educating about condoms. She also dramatically increased government support for Covenant House, an organization that assists teenage mothers.

Oh no, so you mean the Democratic machine is falsely accusing her of being anti-sex ed? Say it isn't so. That would make her a hypocrit who says what she has to to fool the religious into getting their vote, but then does nothing to promote that lifestyle.

Hmmm, what's worse, a blatant liar or a modern-day 'feminist' who does not believe in birth-control, sex-education or abortion.

Tough call if you ask me.

It is possible to have a fulfilling sex life without risking pregnancy. (PM me if you're interested in some pointers.)

Yawn. Another weak attempt at deflection.

Edited September 21, 2008 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

I'm not saying that women must bear children to support anonymous future generations. I'm saying that men and women must have good relationships (so that they can take care of themselves into old age) and raise good children (so that they have their children's help when they are old and possibly infirm).

I'm looking at this in crudely practical terms. Some people make good choices and manage to organize their life so that they have a good, honest spouse who loves them and cares for them, and they have children, grandchildren or at least nieces and nephews, who care about them. Such people will have someone around when they are old and possibly too confused to take care of themselves.

Anyone who trusts the State to perform a similar role is naive or foolish. To negotiate today's bureaucracy, you need a strong-willed advocate, savvy with the Internet. Imagine what it will require in 2025.

As I said earlier - it's a whole other debate whether modern-day feminism is ultimately good for society or not. I happen to think the positives outweigh the negative (which I acknowledge do exist) and you disagree. All the power to you.

It doesn't change the fact that Sarah Palin's brand of feminism is not in line with modern-day feminism. Perhaps the feminism of 100 years ago when women were just starting to fight for their right to vote or have a career, but we've come a long way since then.

Call her beliefs a celebration of working mothers or whatever, but please don't call it feminism when it goes everything modern feminism has stood for.... namely control over our reproductive systems and our ability/desire to be complete without having a family.

Edited September 21, 2008 by BC_chick

[August1991]

I did not make abortion my only argument. I discussed promoting sex-education and birth-control instead of abstinence in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and by extension abortions.

Promoting sex-education?

What planet are you living on? We live in an Internet world. BC Chick, the State does not define kids' lives. I really think that you don't get what's going on.

If kids want to know, they know about safe-sex. The State cannot make kids smarter. Parents can try.

As I said earlier - it's a whole other debate whether modern-day feminism is ultimately good for society or not. I happen to think the positives outweigh the negative (which I acknowledge do exist) and you disagree. All the power to you.

...

Blah, blah, blah.

Fine. Trust the State. Don't get married, don't have kids. When you are old and confused, trust that some State bureaucrat will take care of you.

Edited September 21, 2008 by August1991

[BC_chick]

Promoting sex-education?

What planet are you living on? We live in an Internet world. BC Chick, the State does not define kids' lives. I really think that you don't get what's going on.

If kids want to know, they know about safe-sex. The State cannot make kids smarter. Parents can try.

I'd give your argument more credence if your camp wasn't promoting the same nonsense about abstinence over sex-ed before the internet age. Face it, the argument is that sex-ed rationalises premarital sex. As such, the religious are against it.

My camp says that we've been promoting abstinence before marriage for a number of centuries now, and it doesn't stop people from having sex. So... if they're going to have sex, let's encourage birth-control instead of making them feel shameful for wanting to have sex when their hormones are telling them to do so.

Oh, and about the bolded part in your post.... No need for insults. I have a teenage niece who talks to me on a regular basis about boys and sex. She doesn't with her mom.

Guess why? Her mom shares your and kimmy's view about the way thing 'ought to be' instead of facing the way they really are.

[August1991]

I have a teenage niece who talks to me on a regular basis about boys and sex. She doesn't with her mom.

Guess why? Her mom shares your and kimmy's view about the way thing 'ought to be' instead of facing the way they really are.

I doubt that I share kimmy's views on anything but for your sake, I'm happy that you have a niece to talk to. I suggest that you maintain that relationship. Otherwise, when you are old and confused and alone, you will probably have to speak to someone on a 1-800 number.

Sarah Palin, and other backward Christians, won't need a 1-800 number. They'll only have their children and grandchildren to help them.

[BC_chick]

Sarah Palin, and other backward Christians, won't need a 1-800 number. They'll only have their children and grandchildren to help them.

That's really heart-warming. Still doesn't make her a feminist though.

[BC_chick]

Fine. Trust the State. Don't get married, don't have kids. When you are old and confused, trust that some State bureaucrat will take care of you.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the "state" takes care of plenty of people who have children and families as well. Trust me, I worked in a non-profit old-age home/hospital for years. I know what awaits me whether or not I have children.

[August1991]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the "state" takes care of plenty of people who have children and families as well. Trust me, I worked in a non-profit old-age home/hospital for years. I know what awaits me whether or not I have children.

Really? Tell us about your experiences and what you think will happen in, say, 2020.

What happens to confused older people without caring children to defend them?

----

BC chick, let's be honest. Older boomers without children are afraid of their future. They are beginnning to be friendly to nieces and nephews. They know that being friendly to anonymous State bureaucrats will get them nowhere.

People like Palin in Red states have known this before. Rich Hollywood types have the money to pay for needed support. It is the naive Blue state types who are the suckers.

Edited September 21, 2008 by August1991

[BC_chick]

Really? Tell us about your experiences and what you think will happen in, say, 2020.

What happens to confused older people without caring children to defend them?

They end up in a home. Often when they have children as well, because if they are as confused as you say they are, their children can't take care of them either. If they're not that confused, like my 86 y.o. grandmother, they do well by living on their own, making their own meals, buying their own groceries, travelling, seeing friends.... and refusing to come and live in Vancouver where they can be closer to their children.

BC chick, let's be honest. Older boomers without children are afraid of their future. They are beginnning to be friendly to nieces and nephews. They know that being friendly to anonymous State bureaucrats will get them nowhere.

August, let's be honest, you have to stop projecting your own hopes and fears onto everyone else. Perhaps some people prefer the lifetime of freedom from raising children and/or remaining in an otherwise loveless marriage for the sake of the children.

Maybe to them, it's wroth sacrificing their final years for it. Especially given that children are no guarantee anyway that they will comfort you and stay with you in those final years.

Edited September 21, 2008 by BC_chick

[August1991]

They end up in a home.

Need I add more.

Well, this.

If they're not that confused, like my 86 y.o. grandmother, they do well by living on their own, making their own meals, buying their own groceries, travelling, seeing friends.... and refusing to come and live in Vancouver where they can be closer to their children.

Your 86 y.o. grandmother has you and is competent.

Many, many boomers have no gradchildren or even children. In many cases, they no spouse. They have at most friends their own age who are less than supportive or capable of support. They expect the State (ie. the rest of us) to take care of them.

My viewpoint is different: is it wise to face State bureaucracy alone?

I think smart people, years ago, chose to have good marriages and to have children. This is the best guarantee of good care into old age. For this, the State is no substitute for family. Anyone who belives otherwise is naive and foolish. Just look what happened to the Soviet Union and what happened on Wall Street this past week. For some "contracts", only family can manage it.

-----

To return to the OP, Palin has managed her family better than most. Whether she becomes VP or not, she has a family to support her. This resonates with many Americans who know that they must make their own life.

Edited September 21, 2008 by August1991