These are my opinions; yours may differ.
I'll try to cut down on political ranting after this, but with the election season already this intense, it might be hard to avoid it. Feel free to scroll past my political rambling if you find it boring, or join in if you have something to say.
Just remember:
These are MY opinions; yours may differ.
1. If you're running for one of the highest offices in the land, then the voters SHOULD scrutinize anything and everything about you that might indicate your suitability for that office. Your religious affiliations might indicate that you harbor certain prejudices. Your business associates might indicate special interests that could conflict with your duties. The way you have handled controversy in your previous office indicates how you are likely to handle issues at a higher level. And your judgment about your own family... says a lot.
That being said, OBAMA WAS RIGHT: Lay off the girl. Leave the teenager out of it. She's got enough problems on her plate. Teen pregnancies happen, and I refuse to judge the girl. I have VERY close friends who were unwed teenagers when they got pregnant, and they made the personal choice to keep the kid. (Being pro-choice doesn't mean you would choose an abortion for yourself, or that you'd encourage that option.) And guess what? They were GOOD MOTHERS. Of the two examples I know best, one married the father (and took about 8 years to sort out the marriage, but finally made it work), and the other decided to raise the kid by herself and not marry. BOTH young women raised wonderful kids, with the love and support of their families, BUT IT'S NOT EASY. So, leave Palin's daughter alone. She's got enough problems (like living with her mother).
But Palin herself, as a hypocrite and a poor example of the "values" she claims to represent, is fair game.
2. If Obama or Biden had a pregnant teenage daughter who chose to keep the baby, the candidate would get RIPPED APART by the religious right for their bad parenting skills, and would be blamed for their loose morals as Democrats for the fact that the kid had pre-marital sex. But instead, when it's one of the Republican't candidate's kids, the Religious Reich Right lauds the family for supporting the daughter (and pressuring her into a shotgun wedding).
3. Is anyone aware that Palin has admitted to smoking marijuana? OPENLY. And she hasn't even claimed that she didn't inhale. She's an admitted pot-user. The Repubs have lost ALL rights to ever insulting Bill Clinton for his past endeavors with the happy grass. However, cocaine is another story altogether... Bush?
4. There are people with learning disabilities. I sympathize and accept that. There are people of deep religious faith. I respect and accept that. What I CAN'T and WON'T accept is willful ignorance.
There seems to be a growing faction of the religious right that not only accepts an anti-science viewpoint, but that actually demonizes and condemns academic work and scientific learning as being undesirable. I've seen them say things to the effect of, "Damn academics. They can't understand the Truth because they know too much!" It's almost like religiosity is a new learning disability for some people, where they get a free pass on learning science and REAL history because they claim it violates their faith. Cry me a river - I went to a private parochial school, and the nuns taught about evolution! Our history teacher taught that the First Amendment guarantees freedom for ALL religions, and that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.
Willful ignorance. I refuse to accept the "but I'm religious" line as an excuse for stupidity and ignorance. Facts: the Anti-Stupid.
So, that's what I've got for today. Tune in again next week when I'll rant about elevators, cheap beer, and crab grass.
Just remember:
These are MY opinions; yours may differ.
1. If you're running for one of the highest offices in the land, then the voters SHOULD scrutinize anything and everything about you that might indicate your suitability for that office. Your religious affiliations might indicate that you harbor certain prejudices. Your business associates might indicate special interests that could conflict with your duties. The way you have handled controversy in your previous office indicates how you are likely to handle issues at a higher level. And your judgment about your own family... says a lot.
That being said, OBAMA WAS RIGHT: Lay off the girl. Leave the teenager out of it. She's got enough problems on her plate. Teen pregnancies happen, and I refuse to judge the girl. I have VERY close friends who were unwed teenagers when they got pregnant, and they made the personal choice to keep the kid. (Being pro-choice doesn't mean you would choose an abortion for yourself, or that you'd encourage that option.) And guess what? They were GOOD MOTHERS. Of the two examples I know best, one married the father (and took about 8 years to sort out the marriage, but finally made it work), and the other decided to raise the kid by herself and not marry. BOTH young women raised wonderful kids, with the love and support of their families, BUT IT'S NOT EASY. So, leave Palin's daughter alone. She's got enough problems (like living with her mother).
But Palin herself, as a hypocrite and a poor example of the "values" she claims to represent, is fair game.
2. If Obama or Biden had a pregnant teenage daughter who chose to keep the baby, the candidate would get RIPPED APART by the religious right for their bad parenting skills, and would be blamed for their loose morals as Democrats for the fact that the kid had pre-marital sex. But instead, when it's one of the Republican't candidate's kids, the Religious Reich Right lauds the family for supporting the daughter (and pressuring her into a shotgun wedding).
3. Is anyone aware that Palin has admitted to smoking marijuana? OPENLY. And she hasn't even claimed that she didn't inhale. She's an admitted pot-user. The Repubs have lost ALL rights to ever insulting Bill Clinton for his past endeavors with the happy grass. However, cocaine is another story altogether... Bush?
4. There are people with learning disabilities. I sympathize and accept that. There are people of deep religious faith. I respect and accept that. What I CAN'T and WON'T accept is willful ignorance.
There seems to be a growing faction of the religious right that not only accepts an anti-science viewpoint, but that actually demonizes and condemns academic work and scientific learning as being undesirable. I've seen them say things to the effect of, "Damn academics. They can't understand the Truth because they know too much!" It's almost like religiosity is a new learning disability for some people, where they get a free pass on learning science and REAL history because they claim it violates their faith. Cry me a river - I went to a private parochial school, and the nuns taught about evolution! Our history teacher taught that the First Amendment guarantees freedom for ALL religions, and that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.
Willful ignorance. I refuse to accept the "but I'm religious" line as an excuse for stupidity and ignorance. Facts: the Anti-Stupid.
So, that's what I've got for today. Tune in again next week when I'll rant about elevators, cheap beer, and crab grass.