September 7, 2008

"Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy."

Here's the big NYT story -- pre-touted on Drudge -- about Sarah Palin and her baby:
No one has ever tried to combine presidential politics and motherhood in quite the way Ms. Palin is doing, and it is no simple task. In the last week, the criticism she feared in Alaska has exploded into a national debate. On blogs and at PTA meetings, voters alternately cheer and fault her balancing act, and although many are thrilled to see a child with special needs in the spotlight, some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain.

But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers. And on Wednesday in St. Paul, she proclaimed herself a guardian of the nation’s disabled children.

“Children with special needs inspire a special love,” Ms. Palin said....

“Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy,” Ms. Palin wrote. She added, “Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome.”
Is there really a public issue here to be discussed? What exactly is it?

ADDED: Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life.

216 comments:

1 – 200 of 216   Newer›   Newest»
Fen said...

Is there really a public issue here to be discussed? What exactly is it?

Yes.

"Mothers should stay home and raise the kids, esp special needs kids." - The Feminist Left

Stupe said...

You can't argue with a woman who holds a baby, and especially a woman holding a retarded child...such woman have immediate moral authority.

That's why Hillary Clinton always rushed to be photographed with baby's and was always citing her work with Children's Defense Fund.

Hillary is drooling, and obscenely jealous over another woman's mongoloid prop.

Whatever works.

vbspurs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

Palin said...
"To any critics who say a woman can’t think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I’d just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave.

And this is the woman that left-leaning feminists are trying to destroy. Well, as long as they can still look themselves in the eye in the mirror, I suppose.

Palladian said...

"On blogs and at PTA meetings..."

Which blogs? Which PTA meetings? Show, don't tell.

"...voters alternately cheer and fault her balancing act..."

Which voters? Is there some polling data to support this?

"...and although many are thrilled to see a child with special needs in the spotlight..."

Who are "many"? Examples? Specific groups? A random sampling of people?

"...some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain."

Who are "some"? Whenever you read things that the New York Times attributes to "some", just assume that "some" = the writers and editorial board of the New York Times.

This is gossip column writing without the gossip. What is the point of this piece?

vbspurs said...

Hillary is drooling, and obscenely jealous over another woman's mongoloid prop.

Ugh, come on man.

vbspurs said...

Incidentally, Lisanova is back with her Palin impersonation. She and a Barack-sound-a-like go at it...

Simon said...

"ADDED: Did the 'belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers' just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life."

They'll say anything if that's what's needed by the One.

Seven Machos said...

The right in this country, conservatives in particular, simply cannot pull off this kind of betrayal of principles. Too stupid and mentally flat-footed, I guess.

Simon said...

Victoria, I really want to see Tina Fey come back for the first SNL back after the break. After her superb Hillary puff piece ("Yeah, she's a bitch. So am I. So's this one. Bitches get stuff done") I'm anxious to see if Fey has any integrity or whether she's going to join the chorus of Barack. I have enough of a crush on her to think that she'll do the right thing.

peter hoh said...

I don't see a reason to think that the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just became right wing. It's not even a grammatical slip.

Palin has two beliefs which are made tangible by Trig's presence, one of which has rallied social conservatives.

Had the sequence been reversed, then the grammar would suggest that "balance" was a right-wing position.

He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers(*) and her anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives.

(*)I'm somewhat unsure if a comma would be necessary in this spot.

The sentence, as it originally appears, seems to read well.

vbspurs said...

Take 2:

There's no public issue to be discussed. The more virulent side of the pro-Choice movement see Trig as a symbol of rejection of their stance.

To Palin, his Down Syndrome didn't require a "choice" to be made. He's not a symbol, he's her baby.

Politicians take every angle into consideration. But let's not be heartless and think a mother not aborting a child with special needs was just to help her career along.

IOW, he was know to be a Down Syndrome baby before birth. There was no chance he was going to be aborted. That reflects well on her AND the father, but that's not why she went ahead and kept her baby.

peter hoh said...

Fen, I don't see that the article posits that mothers should stay home and raise the kids.

Perhaps Rush will tell us tomorrow how the article is slanted against Palin, but I don't see it yet.

Dogwood said...

This is gossip column writing without the gossip. What is the point of this piece?

Why would you expect this NYT article to be any different from the other NYT articles? Don't you remember the John McCain having an affair piece?


Did the 'belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers' just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life."

No, the biggest flip was having feminists defend a President's sexual harassment of an intern, but this is giving that moment a run for its money.

peter hoh said...

"...some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain."

That would be Andrew Sullivan, for one.

peter hoh said...

The article lances several liberal boils -- among them, the idea that Palin is a hypocrite for having the amnio.

keyze911 said...

I for one love the Van Palin/Van Halen comment she made

That one comment shows her to be more real than Obama and Amtrak Joe put together.

Hopefully they can get him a guitar and Van Palin can rock out at the inauguration of our first female President

Peter V. Bella said...

He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions…

Struggling to accept that her child would be born with Down syndrome and fearful of public criticism of a governor’s pregnancy, Ms. Palin had concealed the news that she was expecting even from her parents and children until her third trimester… “To any critics who say a woman can’t think and work and carry a baby at the same time,” she said, “I’d just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave.”


It seems that the NYT is the Neanderthal Gov. Palin was talking about. She is not just a feminist, but an uber feminist.

He is tangible proof of nothing of the sort. Trig Palin is proof that a woman and her husband can make a choice, be responsible for that choice, and live with that choice. This is really none of our business. She and her husband decided to have the child. What the hell do we, or the NYT care?

Or is it the politically correct thing to do to have an abortion and tell the whole world that you aborted a handicapped child to appease the so called true feminists and PC peeps? What would the NYT said about that?

Disclaimer: I believe in Choice.

vbspurs said...

I have enough of a crush on her to think that she'll do the right thing.

I've read, perhaps apocryphally, that SNL have sent out notices that they do not need more Palin skit ideas.

I already told my boyfriend next week that I am watching SNL on Saturday, because I sense it's going to be a LULU. ;)

Peter V. Bella said...

Stupe,
Retarded, mongoloid? You are beneath contempt.

Dogwood said...

Just read the article and thought it was pretty good. Nothing negative and some very positive quotes pulled from emails and letters that Palin wrote.

Alex said...

vbspurs said...

Incidentally, Lisanova is back with her Palin impersonation. She and a Barack-sound-a-like go at it...
11:16 PM

This second video wasn't funny due to obvious left-wing bias.

Alex said...

Left wing maniacs would have us believe that Palin decided not to abort Trig for craven political purposes. I want "stupe" and his fellow travelers to admit it.

chuck b. said...

Trig is fine, but how can we get this blog back on Track?

peter hoh said...

Who the hell is stupe, and why should he/she get to speak for the liberal mindset?

blake said...

It's unreasonable to expect the NYT to get it. Even when they try to be even-handed, they will reveal their biases.

vbspurs said...

Nothing negative and some very positive quotes pulled from emails and letters that Palin wrote.

The only negative I foresee, and on blogs one has to be prepared for these memes, is that she's "secretive".

There is an Alaska woman who is a self-declared enemy of hers. They duked it out locally in Wasilla. This woman wrote a long precis on Palin's character, the day after she was rolled-out in Dayton.

She mentioned that she can keep a secret tighter than anyone else she's met.

I don't consider that a negative (on the contrary), but I know that's a big knock on GW Bush.

Get it? It sets the table for the "She's another Bush" meme.

peter hoh said...

Peter Bella @ 11:37

Care to explain yourself? Perhaps you can explain what you think the Times means by "tangible proof," as that seems to be the focus of your objection.

Randy said...

Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow!

So it would appear.

Peter: Slightly Off-topic: What is no longer in doubt is just how influential Andrew Sullivan has become. I earnestly hope that, after this, the operative word becomes "was" but have no illusions that will prove to be true.

Seven Machos said...

What do you want to bet that the word mongoloid, when first coined, was meant to be a neutral if not positive word? I'm quite sure retarded was.

Patm said...

"did the belief that women can balance babies and careers become a right wing flip" (I know that's paraphrased)

No. You know what's changed? For the last 30 years, conservative women have been caricatured one way, and because the caricature was easy, no one bothered to update it. Conservative women have been who they are for a while. Liberals have simply not kept up.

peter hoh said...

C'mon, we're supposed to read this and conclude that she's evil because she keeps secrets?

You might be suffering from NYT Derangement Syndrome.

Please, someone, show me that this is a biased article.

On the contrary, I think this is a good background piece on someone who has just entered the national stage. It puts a lot of the rumors to rest, about as well as I think one can reasonably expect.

Palladian said...

"Trig is fine, but how can we get this blog back on Track?"

I'd like to get back on Track...

Sigh

Synova said...

I particularly and strongly dislike the phrase "balancing family and career". I hate it. It wrongly and artificially separates family *from* life. So I think it's fair to say that I have not suddenly decided that balancing family and career is a conservative value. Children aren't a part of life to be balanced. We over-think it. Deciding to stay home with children is not a failure to figure out how to *balance* career and children. The question is not one of *balance*.

Balancing is a concept that rests on a lie. It assumes that something is taken away from one side and added to the other until everything floats above a fulcrum all nice and tidy.

No. No. No.

The feminist "career woman" seems to be based on the template of the "career man"... that fellow who hardly knows his children and can't be made to come home from the office, who's wife is an accessory to his success. Does anyone actually think that's healthy anymore? Men have been abused by those expectations and it's not better for women than it is for men.

But fixing it is not a case of insisting that men stay at home and don't have careers OR that they somehow figure out how to give just enough to their families to achieve balance between their career and the humans in their lives.

Palladian said...

"Please, someone, show me that this is a biased article."

I don't think it's a biased article. I think that it's a stupid article.

peter hoh said...

Synova, I like the tack you are taking. Balancing might not be the best word to describe it. There may be a better word that works as shorthand for the complicated task of meeting work and family obligations, but until a better word comes along, "balance" is it.

Dogwood said...

She mentioned that she can keep a secret tighter than anyone else she's met.

One more reason to love her and for the press to hate her.

Alex said...

I'd frankly prefer more talk over her 19yo son Track who's about to do a tour in Iraq.

Kevin said...

I am no fan of the NYT, but this seemed like a very decent article to me. In fact, from my perspective, it painted her in a positive light - as an intelligent and brave woman who was dealt a difficult card and played it with dignity and grace. I don't know that if I were in this position that I would deal with it as well.

This article is miles above the vomiting of Andrew Sullivan. I used to read him. Then he became a little excitable about gay marriage (which I support) and I still read him. Then he acquired full fledged BDS and I stopped reading him. I peeked in a few days ago to watch in disgust as he vomited out the disgusting baby switch rumor. The guy has turned into a sleazy scumbag and he is not fit to be in civilized company.

Randy said...

Ann Applebaum has an interesting piece in the Telegraph about Palin representing the next generation of women, bringing the Hillary Clinton era to an end.

peter hoh said...

Sullivan has linked to this NYT article with, "Your move, McCain."

I haven't the foggiest idea how that makes sense.

peter hoh said...

Good point, Randy. In a similar vein, I have heard Obama described as bringing the Jesse Jackson era to an end.

blake said...

Hey, either way, we win.

chickenlittle said...

Stupe said: Whatever works

Nice ethic there stoop. Fuck you

Kevin said...

Sullivan has linked to this NYT article with, "Your move, McCain."

I haven't the foggiest idea how that makes sense.


It may not make any sense. Sullivan is deranged. The venom and vitriol that have spewed forth from him are scarcely believable in any human being. At the height of the baby switch rumor, he was demanding that Sarah Palin release her birth records so that she could disprove the bullshit rumor that he and his friends invented. It would make as much sense for me to declare that he is suffering from AIDS-related dementia and demand that he release his medical records to answer my rumor. The guy is a slimeball. It will be useful to see who his friends are.

vbspurs said...

Heh, yes, Blake, either way we win.

I went to the Sullivan site to look up that challenge. First thread:

In The End, It's About McCain

That's what I had read earlier on Kos. They had their marching orders to stop talking about Palin, and concentrate on McCain.

The problem with that strategy is that McCain is probably the most experienced politician/soldier to run for the Presidency. Whilst he may not make anyone's pulses rise, Palin does. And he's now inextricably tethered to her.

Palin...completes him.

;)

Cheers,
Victoria

Randy said...

So have I, Peter. Hope so. As to the article, I imagine Palin is pleased.

John Lynch said...

Smack. That's the sound of my head hitting the desk.

What are the Democrats doing running against motherhood? What's next, apple pie?

GG Palin Pregnancy Rumor Mill. My God, we are watching the beginning of a meltdown of epic proportions.

People will be talking about how Obama lost the election for years. How he was right on all the issues, was the best candidate the Democrats fielded for decades, and managed to lose to a kid with Down's syndrome.

Hyperbole, but vastly amusing in a dark way. Obama doesn't deserve what the internet did to him.

Chip Ahoy said...

Palin said she wouldn't have been able to do this if she didn't have a large and supportive family. I take her at her word on this.

It not just Palin's parents either, but rather the whole extended family involved in that project. Having lots of brothers and sisters makes a big difference too. The youngest kids in large families get a LOT of one-on-one attention. The shot of the second youngest smushing the infants cow lick was precious. The best little baby doll in the world! That little kid was lucky to be born into such a fantastic family. Did you notice how much the baby gets passed around? That's awesome.

Torn ligament said...

Is there really a public issue here to be discussed? What exactly is it?

her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers.

One issue is that the option that SP is fortunate enough to experience is not available to most women. She takes her children to the office and carried the newborn in a sling while she went about her day. I'm not sure how many women, ambitious or otherwise, have this option.

I think her situation, because of her position, is unusual in that I expect most women take more than three days off before returning to work.

peter hoh said...

Was David Frum's Why Bother? discussed on any Althouse threads about Palin?

Beth said...

And this is the woman that left-leaning feminists are trying to destroy. Well, as long as they can still look themselves in the eye in the mirror, I suppose.

It's a presidential campaign, Simon, not an inquisition. She's running on the GOP ticket, supporting GOP policies. No one's trying to destroy her, they're trying to win an election.

Boy, has this election brought out the drama queen in conservatives!

I'm listening, but I don't hear anything besides Feminists hate the MILF and McCain was a POW.

Mark said...

"People will be talking about how Obama lost the election for years. How he was right on all the issues, was the best candidate the Democrats fielded for decades, and managed to lose to a kid with Down's syndrome."

What's going to be more fun is how the same people will insist the media was too soft on Palin....

Beth said...

The more virulent side of the pro-Choice movement see Trig as a symbol of rejection of their stance.

I don't. My opposition with Palin is that she wants to make all abortion illegal. Her choice was hers to make. I know pro-choice people who have Down Syndrome children. I oppose Palin because I am pro-choice. I don't oppose the choice she made.

And Ann, I don't see a political flip, just evolution at work. Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that.

Torn ligament said...

Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that.

....while having to put up with a lot of crap from the Dr laura types.

The good that will come out of this for working women is that it will become more popular for employers to provide facilities for working women to bring their children to the workplace.

peter hoh said...

Ah, yes. Here's Dr. Laura. She is sticking to her position that mommies need to stay home with their children.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

"Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that."

And this gives contemporary "feminists" the license to treat this particular woman (and her daughter, of course) to the vilest treatment this side of Nathaniel Hawthorne?

BTW, Joe Biden just threw you under the bus.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

"ADDED: Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life."

Phyllis Schlafly's been living that life for, what, 50 years?

The right wing part is that it doesn't take a village (or a community organizer to promote welfare payments) to have a family and career.

peter hoh said...

Mark, I don't think anyone has tried to justify the smears that were being spread about Palin and her daughter.

I have not seen any feminists argue that Palin ought to be staying home, though I don't doubt that some of them will say anything. I don't have cable TV, so I'm sure I'm missing out on a lot of the talking head action.

Links to prominent feminists saying that they think Palin should stay home would be greatly appreciated.

vbspurs said...

Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that.

Hey, Beth. :)

Just to say that my paternal great-grandmother was one of her country's first accredited medical doctors, 30 years before she was given the right to vote.

I understand and appreciate that ATTITUDES to women working were helped by feminists, but please do not think that they paved any special way for working women to "balance" children and their work.

Maids-of-all-work have succeeded doing that for millenia, without so much as a suffragette helping them out.

This is, in fact, one of the articles of faith I hold against feminists. They think every advance women have made is because of their struggle. On the contrary, it is woman's struggle throughout history that made feminism possible.

And I for one I hold the maids in much higher regard than Gloria Steinem.

Cheers,
Victoria

Beth said...

Lots of accusations of "vile treatment" but no real incidents cited. What are you talking about, Mark?

It would be funny, if it weren't sickening, to realize the same whiners here going on about unfair attacks on Palin were enjoying the same level of bullshit attacking Hitlery for her screeching voice, her bad pantsuits, her having the nerve to be a woman too old to be sexy, and most of all, criticizing her as weak or whiny any time she or any supporter pointed out sexist attacks. Now there's your political flip -- everything anyone has to say negative about Palin is sexist, a vile attack, an attempt to destroy her!

But, I am told, she's a hot mom and McCain's a POW. That should be enough.

TRundgren said...

Sullivan's not deranged; he's generating traffic.

Follow the money.

chickenlittle said...

The example which Sarah Palin embodies is what resonates, not at all anything she has said (did she actually say she wants to take away anybody's choice Beth?).

Just how is she a threat?

bjm said...

Is there really a public issue here to be discussed? What exactly is it?

No, of course not, the NYT is in financial straits and Palin sells.

End of story.

Torn ligament said...

The criticism I've seen, and I've only seen it on blogs, not on MSM, hasn't been against Palin for her personal decision but against the hypocrisy that her family's decisions should be private while ours should be legislated.

Revenant said...

It would be funny, if it weren't sickening, to realize the same whiners here going on about unfair attacks on Palin were enjoying the same level of bullshit attacking Hitlery for her screeching voice, her bad pantsuits, her having the nerve to be a woman too old to be sexy, and most of all, criticizing her as weak or whiny any time she or any supporter pointed out sexist attacks.

Er, that was mostly the Obama supporters doing that. Republicans mostly wanted Hillary to win, since she was the weaker of the two Democratic frontrunners.

former law student said...

I agree with Palladian's points, but the point of the piece is obvious: to answer the questions who is this woman and what is she like?

She is one tough woman who can handle everything life throws her way. A pioneer woman who can give birth in the morning and continue plowing the fields in the afternoon, with her baby on her hip. A woman who can run a household, a city, a state, and most likely a country as well.

She did sound odd talking in the third person:
“Children with special needs inspire a special love,” Why not "I really love Trig; he's a gift from God."?

Even odder, the headline quote and the "Many people" quote were part of an email she sent over the signature, “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”

It would never occur to me to send emails purporting to come from Our Creator.

Eric said...

What is no longer in doubt is just how influential Andrew Sullivan has become.

One can only hope. Every time he puts his sniveling into words the Republicans pick up a million votes.

Beth said...

chickenlittle, yes, Palin opposes abortion rights, in all cases, including incest and rape.

peter hoh said...

Beth, I remember hearing that she accepted exceptions in which the life of the mother was at stake.

vbspurs said...

Just how is she a threat?

(This was part of my University thesis about a related topic of female leaders in Romania)

In American terms, she's a triple threat.

Historically, there have been three ways a female leader (usually a Queen regnant or similar) has been successful.

- Beauty/Youth Archetype

- The Mother Archetype

- Warrioress Archetype


Think of a female leader.

Margaret Thatcher? Warrioress. Queen Victoria? Mother. Maria Theresia? Mother. Catherine the Great and Elizabeth I? Warrioress. Joan of Arc? Warrioress/Beauty. Boadicea? Warrioress.

Very very rarely do you get all three going at the same time. Most female sovereigns if they ascede to the Throne young enough, might even hit all three.

Sarah Palin is the Female Perfect Storm:

She is a fertile mother, beautiful, and as a life-long huntress at home with guns and the military, qualifies as a warrioress already.

I could probably write a book about this. Maybe I will.

Cheers,
Victoria

Beth said...

Revenant, we've seen more than a decade of anti-Hillary cant. Yes, some of the more recent came from Obama supporters, but I've read and heard just as much from conservatives who just hate her guts. I have no problem agreeing that sexism has come from both the left and the right in this election--and now that it's directed at Palin, it's suddenly of concern to conservatives. The Daily Show on Sept. 4 captured the delicious double standard at work over on the right.

Beth said...

VB, I like your archetypal analysis. I've also suspected that it will take a conservative woman to crack the executive ceiling because of the warrior archetype. Hillary could have done it, because she's identified as a liberal hawk.

Beth said...

Well, that's good to hear, Peter. I'm still not voting for her.

peter hoh said...

Victoria, add to the list Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto.

Family connections play into the the two from the subcontinent.

A friend asked me why the U.S. has not yet had a woman leader when there are so many examples from around the world. I suppose some of it has to do with the differences between a president and a prime minister.

vbspurs said...

because she's identified as a liberal hawk.

When 2008 started, I was almost sure of it, Beth. Funny how things work out, eh?

Cheers,
Victoria

Torn ligament said...

I suppose some of it has to do with the differences between a president and a prime minister.

Most definitely the parliamentary system versus a republic process is a huge difference.

Add New Zealand to the list of current female heads of state. Female AND gay. Yay for Helen Clark.

peter hoh said...

Then there's the Corazon Aquino model, the widow's route to power.

vbspurs said...

Victoria, add to the list Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi

Both Mother/Warrioress.

Benazir Bhutto

Beauty/Mother.

Family connections play into the the two from the subcontinent.

Yes, and also with Megawati Sukarnoputri, whose father was also Indonesian President.

The latter actively courts the Warrioress theme, though she isn't a monarch, by wearing uniforms and decorations.

Phillipino president, Gloria Arroyo, falls into a Beauty archetype. Perhaps uniquely of the women listed, that's all she represents. This is the hardest one to represent, because it's not necessarily a powerful position.

I have to tell you that this "Perfect Storm" characteristic of Palin's is why a lot of people are scared to death of her. Oh, they may find genuine positions of hers that they do not like.

But as sure as I am sitting here, clear-eyed Democratic strategists know a woman politician like this is precious, and therefore threatening, beyond words.

Old Joe Kennedy doubted his son Jack had what it took to be a pol. He was too skinny, too aloof, not ready to dirty his hands due to his elite upbringing.

The guy in charge of running Jack Kennedy's campaign, a grizzled veteran of Boston Southie wards, took one look at him and said, "Joe, you're nuts. This boy, with everything he brings to the table, is worth his weight in gold."

And so he was.

Cheers,
Victoria

reader_iam said...

In reference to Trig Palin, Stupe writes: mongoloid prop

In reference to Stupe, reader_iam writes: Absolute-bottom feeder (and no claim on earth of satire can excuse)

MC said...

former law student said:

"Even odder, the headline quote and the "Many people" quote were part of an email she sent over the signature, “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”

It would never occur to me to send emails purporting to come from Our Creator."

Typical lawyer, reading it as being serious and literal :)

I remember when I was in biochemistry, my supervisor's wife had a child and he sent us all an email about his 'latest genetic experiments', with materials, methods and results sections describing the genetic lineages, the 9 month incubation, and the observed results: a lovely, healthy son.

I can't imagine what you'd make of that with your law-o-vision :p

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Here is your obligatory sexist remark of the night:

Babies with Down Syndrome are one thing when they're 4 months old...and they are a whole other thing when they're 4 years old.

Good luck balancing parenting with running the free world.

Hope you've got a great nanny, or, "First Dude."

Sy said...

Can someone please explain how a woman could give birth one day and the goes to work the next day? That's what Palin did with Piper. The woman is nuts ...in a good way!

vbspurs said...

Zach, her sister Heather has a Down Syndrome child too (in the NYT article it says he's autistic, but I read the correction in an Alaskan newspaper).

He's 13.

As far as families go, I think hers is in as good a position as any to tackle this situation.

blake said...

Not just sexism, but jackassery. Good work, Zeeps.

Sy said...

I also heard she played in the championship basketball game with a fractured ankle.

blake said...

I'm pretty sure my mom came close to that. Might've taken a whole week.

And, here's the thing: I think it's generally true that mothers should stay at home with the kids. There is a bond, and it's the most powerful and important one in a child's life.

But it's not for all women and all situations.

If "liberation" is to mean anything, it has to mean that the opportunities are there for all of us, even if we do fall outside the norm.

vbspurs said...

Can someone please explain how a woman could give birth one day and the goes to work the next day?

Queen Victoria did the same thing with each of her children's births, after the 3rd (Princess Alice). She had 6 more. In her diary, she recounts giving birth to her last, Princess Beatrice, and a few hours later, she received a minister for an audience.

Maria Theresia of Austria opened a Hungarian assembly a few HOURS after the birth of one of her 15 kids.

In short, this used to be very common amongst hearty stock, and women of large families.

In fact, the expectation that you needed extended rest came only in the latter half of the Victorian era, when the whole "wilting females" who needed smelling salts to revive their delicate constitutions, came about.

I'm tired of women made out to be made of porcelain, and that's why I admire this woman's brute strength.

Cheers,
Victoria

Zachary Paul Sire said...

her sister Heather has a Down Syndrome child too

Fine. But her sister isn't the President of the United States.

Let's get some people in the comments who are raising special needs children, I'd like to hear their views.

My extended family has special needs children in them (no, I'm not one of them!), and the parenting is ridiculously hard. While this shouldn't disqualify Palin from the job, it certainly is an issue worth considering.

In the end, her lies about earmarks and the bridge and, most importantly, her extremist views are all that matter to me.

blake said...

Let's get some people in the comments who are raising special needs children, I'd like to hear their views.

OK: You're a jackass.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Brilliant.

blake said...

What you're doing--because it's politically expedient--is trying to raise the specter that she's not going to be able to be President because she has a special needs child.

That's not your decision; it's not even any of your business.

Don't be surprised if a special needs parent decides that that particular approach is just one way of many that jackasses treat them like crap.

Others include: Hostility over having other children (presumably not a problem for the Palins because Trig is probably they're last--but imagine the outpouring of hate if they had a sixth child), resentment for bringing the child out in public (babies tend to be cute no matter what, but the vitriol will increase as Trig gets older), and a superstitious feeling that the parents are at fault--that they caused the harm to the child and are stupid/evil/crazy in some fashion.

That last we've seen in spades already.

You know nothing of Trig. You lump "special needs" together and decide that Trig's going to be trouble. (Some Down's kids have above-average intelligence. Some are quite exceptionally intelligent, for that matter.)

What makes you a jackass, however, is that you're feigning concern with no regard for the people involved, because you have a political axe to grind. You'd like to see an extraordinary politician's career extinguished on a false premise of mercy.

I hope that clarifies.

vbspurs said...

Zach, one gets the sense that in a few years, you'll say she'll be disqualified from being President because she's going through the menopause.

Being a mother, even of a Special Needs baby, is a non-issue.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

It is an issue. It is completely an issue, however small.

There is nothing wrong with asking whether or not someone has the skill to carry out the task of raising a special needs child and being VP at the same time.

But, like I've said, this is the least important chink in Sarah's armor for me.

The NY Times is being silly, as usual, for printing this.

And Blake, you are my new crush. Sorry Palladian.

Alex said...

blake - zach and his fellow lefties are scared out of their minds about Palin. They along with us have that feeling - "maybe she's the next Reagan", and they MUST destroy her now. Nip it in the bud, so to speak.

vbspurs said...

Gay men have had to fight slurs against their masculinity forever. It's one of the factors which many people believe makes them ineligible to serve in the military or on sport teams -- even if it's unspoken.

"Weak. Sissy. FEMALE."

I am shocked that you would take a very similar perception about a person's capabilities, and raise that as an issue, however small.

You'll find that homophobes, like other people willing to dismiss people for various "concerns" of similar nature, have a lot in common with sexists and racists.

It's all about demeaning a person's capabilities to do something based on certain aspects of their lives.

Seriously, ZPS. Take a moment, even if it's not now or publicly, and revisit your reasons.

blake said...

There is nothing wrong with asking whether or not someone has the skill to carry out the task of raising a special needs child and being VP at the same time.

Oh? Then I suppose you asked that before of others?

No? Because no candidate has ever run for office with a special needs child, you say?

Well, what's the cut-off of responsibility you feel comfortable giving a parent of a special needs child? Is it okay to be a governor? A mayor?

How about a community organizer? Does that comport with your sense of how much responsibility a parent of a child with special needs can have before you start challenging them?

Enlighten us, ZPS, on all the previous situations where you've brought this up, so that we may bask in the enlightenment of your measured scrutiny.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Ah yes, Alex. Speaking of being scared...why the blocked profile?

Alex said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Ah yes, Alex. Speaking of being scared...why the blocked profile?

3:47 AM

Ah, change the subject when one loses the argument. This has nothing to do with me.

vbspurs said...

Blocked profiles are all the rage. That ajf had one too.

blake said...

Alex,

It's so phony it borders on sociopathy. Not ZPS, necessarily, but the whole "Oh, we're SOOOOO concerned about your child's welfare."

That's if they're not saying the responsible thing is to have killed the child.

Ask me if I'm surprised about the 10 point lead among likely voters that suddenly materialized. G'wan. Ask me. Or don't. You can probably guess.

Alex said...

blake - I'm more interested in the new state polls to be released this week. Expect McCain to be in the lead in all 2004 Red states and HUGE PANIC mode for O-Drama!!!

blake said...

I just wish these mofos would learn something.

The Dems about identity politics;
The Reps about selling out.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Victoria,

A job is a job. Raising the question of whether or not someone (male or female) can raise a child while serving as VP transcends gender. The end. I never said that was a deal breaker, just a question.

The point I make is that it would be very difficult, for anyone. This is interesting to me because there are other people out there who could serve as VP with just as many qualifications without this personal challenge. That's all.

Blake,

I'm commenting on a specific thread related to a mother's fitness to serve as VP and raise a baby with Down Syndrome. I'm skeptical, and I hope she has a lot of help. That's it. My bias is just as glaring as yours.

Revenant said...

Revenant, we've seen more than a decade of anti-Hillary cant.

Yes, but the Republican criticisms of her centered on her being dishonest, power-hungry and generally unlikable, not on her lack of feminine qualities. Republicans didn't like her husband either.

Revenant said...

Good luck balancing parenting with running the free world.

How come you're not telling Barack Obama this? If elected, he'll have two minors to raise during his entire time in office. How's he planning to balance parenting with "running the free world", especially when he's never run much of anything before?

Oh, wait. He has a spouse to help him -- and how about that, so does Sarah Palin.

blake said...

Both your statements are false.

First, there is no one with Palin's qualifications. Not one other person on the face of the planet could've caused the explosion that has occurred in the past 10 days. Not. One. Argue about "executive experience" or population or staff or whatever you want, but the fact is that Palin is uniquely qualified.

Second, there's nothing honest about this line of inquiry. You pretended to solicit opinions from parents raising special needs children, but all you really want to do is confirm your bias. Your so-called skepticism is entirely partisan.

My bias is against the disgusting attacks launched against her and her family. It ought to be a bias we all share.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Blake, your comment is false.

There is nothing biased about questioning the leader of the free world, my leader...for what his or her family situation might be, his or her personal history, his or her experience, nothing is off limits. You are fair game the second you toss your hat in the ring. Sorry.

Do I think having a Down Syndrome baby or being a grandmother or having two young daughters, like Obama, disqualifies you? No. But to try and marginalize the skepticism as "lies" or "jackassness" is dangerously UnAmercian.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

there is no one with Palin's qualifications.

Qualified to win an election, well, sure.

But otherwise, I've got a room full of senators and governors here who might disagree.

blake said...

ZPS,

The problem the anti-Palin forces face now is a complete lack of credibility.

I'm not saying the inquiry is completely invalid under all circumstances; I'm saying you're bringing it up because you're faced with a political opponent you're having trouble grappling with, and you perceive this as a potentially winning point.

For example, you bring up Obama as having young children, as if this shows how unbiased you're being--how honest your skepticism is.

You can prove that easily enough: Point us to where you raised this concern about Obama any time before Palin got in the race. Or about any candidate ever in your whole life prior to 10 days ago.

Just one point where you were skeptical about Obama's ability to lead because he had small children. Shouldn't be hard to find, what with your honest skepticism.

And that might be important to maintaining your own integrity, but let us not pretend that others engaged in this spectacle have anything remotely approaching integrity.

blake said...

Qualified to win an election, well, sure.

It's kind of the reverse lottery: You can't play if you don't win.

But otherwise, I've got a room full of senators and governors here who might disagree.

Name one that's capable of exciting the party and causing the opposition to self-destruct.

Must be someone in that room who can do that. Right?

Hell, name one that's exciting. The only one I can think of (from listening to Reps) is Jindal, and he has about Palin's experience.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Obama and Palin will both face difficulties raising children while in office. By any objective measure, Palin faces the bigger challenge because she has more children and one with special needs. The end.

This thread is about PALIN, and I'm skeptical. That's it. You're trying to make more out of it than it simply is.

But make no mistake, there are bigger issues about Palin (i.e. she's a liar) that should disqualify her.

blake said...

Boy, don't I know it.

I'm printing up a run of

PALIN LIED
PEOPLE DIED

bumper stickers to get a jump on the meme.

blake said...

And now I leave with a quote from Lincoln: "Integrity is like a balloon."

You can work the rest of it out yourself.

Alex said...

The collective left today:

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

break out the tiniest violin

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Zachary--I will take your concern as valid--let me suggest that in terms of child development, a down child is no different than any other child--same needs same requirement for immunizations and medical checkups. The concern for down shildren is when they mature and the parents can no longer provide the nuturing. Down adults function very well in group homes if they can no longer with extended family. I suspect the thing that weighs most heavily on the parents of any disabled child is what happens to them when the parents die. That has to be an agonzing concern

By all means, go to a reputable site that has advice for parents of a down child, and read for yourself.

If you are genuinely concerned that somehow baby Trig will not get the care and attention he needs, which is no different that Senator Obamas children, your concern is misplaced.

bill said...

Is there a public issue to be discussed?

...in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth

She's an alien?

Jim said...

ZPS -

blake had a completely valid point: point us to where at any point, anywhere, any time, anyhow, in any way ever in your life questioned whether a parent of either gender could hold a political office due to their family obligations.

You completely dodged his question in your response with the "this thread is about Palin" non-response. Or should we take it from your non-responsive response that the answer to his question is

"I can't point you to any such comment, blake, because I've been attempting a partisan hit job on Sarah Palin by questioning her family obligations in accord with the marching orders put out by the Obama campaign?"*

* And before you claim that "there's no proof that the Obama campaign put out marching orders let me point out to you that not incidently on the exact same day:

- Andrew Sullivan posts a puff piece on Trig Palin
- the NYT prints a puff piece on Palin
- Kos puts up the "lay off Palin, it's about McCain" piece
,etc.

Suddenly every left-wing media-connected hack decides to play nice with Palin's family on the exact same day at the exact same time? Don't beclown yourself by even attempting to insult the intelligence of Ann's readers by making the claim...

The media had too many rumors to report, too quickly despite having not a single reporter on the ground in Alaska. This was clearly an orchestrated attack on Palin by Obama's campaign in an attempt to get her to decline the nomination. The media allowed themselves to be used like the tools so Obama could claim to rise above it with clean hands. I understand that this is the way politics is played in Chicago, but out in the real world we're not so willing to close our eyes to that kind of obvious gaming of the system.

The campaign horribly miscalculated, and today's polls show just how badly....Read them and weep because people like you acting as one of Obama's "useful idiots" trying to defend the indefensible actions of the Left on this subject are the biggest reason Obama now finds himself 10 points behind...

Michael McNeil said...

Beth sez:
It would be funny, if it weren't sickening, to realize the same whiners here going on about unfair attacks on Palin were enjoying the same level of bullshit attacking Hitlery for her screeching voice, her bad pantsuits, her having the nerve to be a woman too old to be sexy, and most of all, criticizing her as weak or whiny any time she or any supporter pointed out sexist attacks.

As Revenant pointed out earlier, this is mostly false, and reveals that Beth hasn't really been paying attention to the blast of sexist slime directed at Hillary from the left by Obama's advocates during the primaries. Many of the more avid Hillary supporters, however, those who follow blogs and Internet fora, have had their eyes opened wide as a result, and now — sensitized to the issue — they can see quite clearly that the same kind of facts-free sexist savagery is being hurled against Sarah Palin (why is sexism still so much more acceptable than racism anyway?).

To perceive the depth of many Hillary supporters' feelings as a result of all this crap, I recommend interested folks check out (non-official) Hillary supporter sites such as HillaryClintonForum.net.

Appalled by all the venom spewed forth by Obama's wingnut base in his campaign against their hero Hill and now Sarah too, those Clinton women have transformed into enthusiastic Palin — and hence McCain — supporters, though they're by no means “ex-Hillaryites.” They're still, almost uniformly, very much for Hillary Clinton — but Sarah Palin is now their acclaimed champion in support of women in general and Hillary in particular as they see it, whilst contemptuously rejecting the Obamaites (and Obama himself) root and branch due to their baldly sexist and amoral “burn down everybody and everything to win the election,” facts-be-damned and even invented methodology.

It's fascinating reading through the (900+ comments) thread at that site where the Hillary aficionados first encountered Sarah's acceptance speech last week (one can be find that thread here).

The Hillary fans there were uniformly enormously excited by Sarah's speech — the live blogger-commenters there laughing, crying and high-fiving each other as she spoke; one could hardly avoid feeling likewise as their enthusiasm washed over one. (Extra credit to anybody reading through that long thread who can find the one or two slightly negative comments about Palin or even Republicans in general.)

Many of the commenters proclaimed themselves fired up and ready to go right out to work and sweat blood for McCain-Palin — expressing bemusement and astonishment all the while that they were actually watching the Republican National Convention, enjoying it immensely, and fully in support of whilst intending to vote for the Republican national ticket!

Without feeling any contradiction, those (perhaps former) Democrats still look forward to another try by Hillary in 2012 (possibly against Sarah; a battle royal they considered it) — while others sought a Hillary-Palin ticket for 2012; unlikely though that may seem to us, somehow it doesn't to them.

Good going Obamaites!

Michael McNeil said...

Patm said:
“did the belief that women can balance babies and careers become a right wing flip” (I know that's paraphrased)

No. You know what's changed? For the last 30 years, conservative women have been caricatured one way, and because the caricature was easy, no one bothered to update it. Conservative women have been who they are for a while. Liberals have simply not kept up.


One of the more amusing interchanges during that Sarah Palin speech thread on the Hillary supporter site I mentioned above was this:

“Republicans are the new Progressive Party!” one Clinton fan wrote.
“How the hell did that happen!?” another asked right back.

Pogo said...

ZPS said; "My extended family has special needs children in them (no, I'm not one of them!), and the parenting is ridiculously hard."

ooooh oooh! Call on me!

I grew up with two (two!) 'special needs' brothers. I guess that makes me an unimpeachable witness. One is retarded, the other autistic (and retarded, but who's counting? Plus, I get to say 'retarded' because he's 'blood'. Anyone else can't. So unPC if you do.)

If Sarah Palin cannot be VP because of a the demands inherent in raising kids, especially this one, then women with kids cannot be leaders in any situations at all, because almost ALL children are demands on time. Not boss, not CFO, not CEO, not Mayor, not Senator, not PTA president, not even Burger King manager; they cannot cannot cannot be in charge.

C'mon, Zach. That's the tail end of the silly argument you are making. So say it: "Zach thinks women with children cannot lead."

Please please please; do keep making this argument. I believe it will be quite effective, just not in the way that you think.

Pogo said...

"Zachary Paul Sire said...
I'm commenting on a specific thread related to a mother's fitness to serve as VP and raise a baby with Down Syndrome."


Jesus in a raincoat, Karl Rove, is that you?

That is simply genius.

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"Sullivan has linked to this NYT article with, 'Your move, McCain.' I haven't the foggiest idea how that makes sense."

You have to keep in mind that Sullivan was still under the impression late last week that the Palin pick was a blunder and that McCain was going to scrub her from the ticket. This is a guy who's living in his own little world.

vbspurs said...
"She mentioned that [Palin] can keep a secret tighter than anyone else she's met. I don't consider that a negative (on the contrary)...."

Can't imagine anyone thinking secrecy was a desirable attribute in an executive. It isn't like John Adams wrote in Thoughts on Government that secrecy is one of the essential attributes of the executive branch.

goesh said...

She is quite relaxed with her baby, good eye contact, some smiles - it's hard to consistently fake that. That said, I wouldn't mind a small blurb about Brett and the Jets, equally relevant as any woman running for office who happens to have children.

George said...

From today's Wall St. J.---

Down syndrome affects one in 733 U.S. newborns, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Researchers at the National Down Syndrome Society say the number of incidences has fallen by about 8% in the past two decades because of the increased availability of prenatal testing and abortion. The condition is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome and affects the cognitive and physical development of those born with it.

Up to 90% of women who receive Down syndrome diagnoses for their fetuses have abortions, says Brian Skotko, whose practice and research at Children's Hospital Boston centers on Down syndrome. The number could rise as simple blood tests for abnormalities head to market.

That is leading to rifts in the Down syndrome community, which the National Down Syndrome Society estimates includes about 400,000 people nationally with the condition. Many parents fear that Down syndrome is on the leading edge of a eugenics movement to eliminate children with abnormalities. Others are wary of being labeled as social conservatives if they choose to have a child knowing it will have a cognitive disability.

How bizarre...people are "wary of being labeled as social conservatives if they choose to have a child knowing it will have a cognitive disability." Better to abort a fetus than be labeled a Republican? Can that be so?

Michael_H said...

You know the Seinfeld episode where everything is backward? Kramer gets an office job (with no pay); George becomes attractive to beautiful women; Elaine meets the opposites of Jerry, Kramer and George; and Jerry dates Man Hands? As Seinfeld describes it: "Up is down. Down is up. He says 'hello' when he leaves, 'goodbye' when he arrives."

Frankly, when I look at the world today, I feel like I have been transported to Seinfeld's Bizarro World.

For example, Joe Biden said this weekend that he believes life begins at the moment of conception. Feminists now argue that a working mom with a newborn should stay home. Obama says that he considered enlisting in the military.

Up is down, down is up indeed.

Simon said...

Zach claims that it's relevant that Palin has a special needs child. I wonder what consequences would ensue if Zach fired an employee because she gave birth to a Downs Syndrome child. Anyone here conversant with employment law?

Beth said...
"No one's trying to destroy her, they're trying to win an election."

I agree with you about their motives, but why you think that's an appropriate role for a media that feigns disinterest baffles me.

"It's a presidential campaign, Simon, not an inquisition. She's running on the GOP ticket, supporting GOP policies."

You're describing what it ought to be. But looking at the treatment she's received by the media, it seems to me that "inquisition" comes fairly close to the mark. This comes even closer.

peter hoh said...
"Beth, I remember hearing that she accepted exceptions in which the life of the mother was at stake."

That's my recollection, too.

By the way, I'm pleased to see Zach conceding the inevitability of her election to succeed McCain.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Leaders, Not Breeders! -- motto of the newly-formed Jackass Party

Michael McNeil said...

Beth says:
VB, I like your archetypal analysis. I've also suspected that it will take a conservative woman to crack the executive ceiling because of the warrior archetype.

So, according to you, it will likely take a “conservative woman” to break the glass ceiling, but you're not about to support a “conservative woman” for office, because they're often pro-life — have I got that right? How very pro-women of you.

But, just the other day, Obama informed gun aficionados that they should be willing to vote for him, because — “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress…. This can’t be the reason not to vote for me.”

Since Sarah Palin, even if she were to become President and wanted to, wouldn't have the foggiest prayer of actually abolishing abortion in this country, why wouldn't you take Obama's advice and vote for her anyway — thus shattering the glass ceiling?

mcg said...

Well, I have to say, I think that on balance this is a good article. Yes, it seems to raise just about all the commonly cited objections to Sarah Palin's life and candidacy: balancing work and family, flying while in "labor", doing an amnio when you're not considering abortion, etc. But at least the credible arguments of support are given as well.

Cedarford said...

vbspurs - IOW, he was know to be a Down Syndrome baby before birth. There was no chance he was going to be aborted. That reflects well on her AND the father, but that's not why she went ahead and kept her baby.

The rate people elect to abort Down's babies is now 91-93%. Does that reflect badly on the significant majority of prospective parents and their physicians who advise most parents would be better off aborting and starting fresh?

Pre-natal testing is really taking off as a payoff for the great leaps we have been making in DNA and genetics research.

And we are getting more and more incurable diseases that can be screened for prenatally. Many of these are thought to never likely have a cure (sorry, Jerry Lewis lies..) And many are far worse than Downs, offering a short, miserable existance to the afflicted infant.

With enormous financial expense to society, perhaps to the parents as well on top of the emotional toll.

Screening of parents and fetuses promises to make many of these diseases far rarer in the immediate future as most are aborted, and for the inheritable ones - rarer with each generation until they are "bred out" - such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, 18,21-Trimsome, Tay Sachs.

That is not a bad thing, IMO.

=================
Rogerj - let me suggest that in terms of child development, a down child is no different than any other child--same needs same requirement for immunizations and medical checkups. The concern for down shildren is when they mature and the parents can no longer provide the nuturing.

Roger, I knew a few things about Downs from a friend, and read a little on the weekend - I knew they had major heart problems in a significant number so they weren't just duller but sweeter kids..But reading about the disease's other manifestations was pretty depressing. They have much higher risk of many severe medical problems growing up, most die by the time they are in their 40s of emerging medical conditions that are incurable because they are rooted in chromosome trisomy. The ones that get to 40 mostly have early onset dementia.

In Palin's case will it affect her ability to be VP? Even dream one day of being President? No, not if other family members take up the slack.

Her husband doesn't "have" to work if she gets VP pay and perks plus the usual money from the "inspiring book" marquee politicians and their ghostwriters put out, that socks away a couple of million or more..

Sloanasaurus said...

There are still some on the right who reject Palin's candidicy because of the children issue. However, the rejection, is not specific to her family because it is large, it is from a belief that men and women should have different roles - the woman's role being that of staying in the home.

This belief, however, has been largly defeated by reality in that women not only work, but they often have to work outside the homes.

Regardless, fantastic leaders are 1 in a million in our society, thus when one comes along such as Governor Palin, we should make exceptions to social norms.

peter hoh said...

I wish Zach and others would realize that they are grasping as straws, and doing so makes them look desperate.

Absent a high-quality video of Palin conducting Wiccan rituals, there is nothing that Dems/liberals can do, say, uncover about Palin that will turn conservatives away from her. The harder they try, the more likely they harden her supporters' resolve.

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

C4--downs children do suffer more congenital problems than others, and their life expectancy is lower. They now live much longer than they used to because of better medical care--which makes the need for regular checkups more important.

That said, there is no doubt in my mind that having a down child will not affect her ability to be vice president, which is a nothing job anyway. Breaking ties and attending state funerals historically. Interesting to see if elected, how McCain will assign responsibilities to her.

Peter V. Bella said...

peter hoh said...
The article lances several liberal boils -- among them, the idea that Palin is a hypocrite for having the amnio.

She is not a hypocrite. Pregnant women over forty are strongly urged by the medical profession to have an amnio. It is good, sound medical practice. It has nothing to do with the pro-choice movement or abortion. It is just good, sound advice from a physician.

mcg said...

I suspect that Trig will have access to superior medical care and educational opportunities in the D.C. area compared to Wasilla, Anchorage, or even Juneau.

Peter V. Bella said...

peter hoh said...
Peter Bella @ 11:37

Care to explain yourself? Perhaps you can explain what you think the Times means by "tangible proof," as that seems to be the focus of your objection.


God, you people are so easy, so dumb, so stupid; like dude, you never went to school?


From the dictionary:

Tangible
Actual
Capable of being understood and evaluated, therefore regarded as real.
Able to be realized. Something that has physical form.
Concrete, real, solid, substantial, material, certain, evident, perceptible, definite,

Proof
Conclusive evidence, state of having been proven

So, tangible proof is conclusive evidence that is actual, capable of being understood and evaluated, therefore regarded as real. It is evidence that is able to be realized and has physical form. It is concrete, real, substantial, material, certain, evident, perceptible, and definite. It is a state of having been proven.

Happy now?

Peter V. Bella said...

John Lynch said...
Smack. That's the sound of my head hitting the desk.

What are the Democrats doing running against motherhood? What's next, apple pie?


Yes they are. There is a movement to ban the use of lard in cooking. Lard just happens to make the best pie crusts. First they go after the lard, then the apple pie. Country goes into the toilet.

peter hoh said...

Peter Bella, you seem to be arguing with me when I agree with you. What gives? You objected to the NYT article, but can't seem to explain why.

Your 8:23 gives the impression that I wrote, "God, you people are so easy, so dumb, so stupid; like dude, you never went to school?"

I did not write that line.

Henry said...

It isn't a reductive issue, but let me be reductive.

If McCain-Palin win, Palin gets a $120,000 raise.

That could cover a lot of child support.

On the non-reductive side, it's hard work for anyone to raise children and pursue a career. But if a career-person is also family-focused, that suggests a measure of balance and groundedness. One of the more pernicious myths about the presidency is the idea that the president is personally involved with every decision.

Bad idea. Micromanagers go to hell and take their organizations with them.

A president (or vice president) who can delegate the hell out of the job and leave time for family and sleep, may well have better judgement when it counts than the type-A manic-depressive that never stops trying to run things.

mcg said...

She is not a hypocrite. Pregnant women over forty are strongly urged by the medical profession to have an amnio. It is good, sound medical practice. It has nothing to do with the pro-choice movement or abortion. It is just good, sound advice from a physician.

Peter, I hope it's clear that the other Peter was agreeing with you. But there is, actually, a pro-life argument against amnio. It has a non-zero risk of causing miscarriage. So, if you do not intent to alter your pre-natal strategy based on the results of the amnio, its utility outweights its risks.

On the other hand, amnio can often detect spina bifida, which can sometimes be treated in the womb. There's an amazing photo circulating the web taken during such a procedure, where the 21-week-old unborn baby's hand is gripping the finger of the surgeon. (It was an involuntary response; the baby was anesthetized.) But ultrasound can also be used to detect spina bifida.

To be honest, I think that is a calculation that escapes many folks, and even many doctors. I think the overwhelming tendency to abort babies with such defects tends to cloud the advice given by doctors even to known pro-life patients.

mcg said...

Got this line backwards: "its utility outweights its risks." should have been "its risk outweights its utility."

Roger J. said...

Henry: Jimmy Carter is the best recent example--recall the possibly apocryphal story of him personally scheduling the WH tennis courts.

knox said...

I've known a couple of people with down syndrome and they seemed exceptionally loving and really to genuinely love life. She's right when she says that child will be a joy.

Michael McNeil said...

Great article, that Insty points to, in the San Francisco Chronicle by pro-choice feminist Tammy Bruce, who is supporting Sarah Palin.

Excerpt: “The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.”

Read the whole thing.

peter hoh said...

Peter Bella, it is you who quoted the NYT He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions…
and then went on to write

He is tangible proof of nothing of the sort. Trig Palin is proof that a woman and her husband can make a choice, be responsible for that choice, and live with that choice. This is really none of our business. She and her husband decided to have the child. What the hell do we, or the NYT care?

Do you really want to stick to your assertion that Trig is not tangible proof of Palin's anti-abortion convictions?

Do you object to this particular NYT article, or is it just a knee-jerk reaction that leads you to assume that any NYT article about Palin must be flawed and biased?

eliza d. said...

The more virulent side of the pro-Choice movement see Trig as a symbol of rejection of their stance.

No. We actually see it as affirmation of our stance, depending on what her stance actually is (she seems confused). What many of us on this side of the issue see, is the false choice. It seems that her personal belief system did not allow her a choice, yet she gets credit for one. Internally, her options were reduced to one, but she does not really believe there are no options otherwise she would not speak of “decisions”; rather she opposes the options and seeks to dismiss them by denying their existence. So, is she really pro-life or does she understand that pro-choice is really about a choice?

rhhardin said...

The joke used to be, ``Now that I've raised a baby-sitter, I can raise a family.''

peter hoh said...

In her SFGate article, Tammy Bruce offers thin evidence of sexism from Obama, while blaming him for sexism from his supporters and from the media.

She writes: Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to.

I doubt she'd find that sentence acceptable if we switched "men" and "women."

mcg said...

It seems that her personal belief system did not allow her a choice, yet she gets credit for one.

Of course it allows her a choice. It's just that to her, the choice is between one that is morally right and one that is morally wrong. Furthermore, the morally wrong choice is chosen by 90% of the women in the same situation; and the wrong choice is encouraged by society, the media, and many doctors.

Yes, she gets credit for making a choice.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

Furthermore, Eliza, there are some more "virulent" abortion supporters that go so far as to say that it was morally wrong for Sarah Palin to bring a baby with Down's syndrome into the world. That view has been espoused in comments to other posts in this blog, in fact.

Peter V. Bella said...

Peter Hoh,
Looks like the issue is moot. The cut that paragrah out. They must have gotten some flack.

peter hoh said...

I can't speak to the story as it appears in the print edition of the NYT, but that paragraph is still in the online version of the story.

former law student said...

What do you want to bet that the word mongoloid, when first coined, was meant to be a neutral if not positive word? I'm quite sure retarded was.

Quite right. In time, every euphemism becomes a dysphemism. "Retarded" simply means slow to develop. It was much kinder at the time than the words "moron" and "idiot."

The term mongoloid was based on the supposed resemblance between their facial features and Asian ones. I remember seeing a display on the Four Races in a museum when I was little: Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, and Mongoloid.

Absent a high-quality video of Palin conducting Wiccan rituals, there is nothing that Dems/liberals can do, say, uncover about Palin that will turn conservatives away from her.

Not even if it turns out that Trig was John Edwards' love child? What if they discover that Tony Rezko owns the lot next door, or that Sarah's godmother is Angela Davis?

Roger J. said...

I believe at one time one term used for a down syndrome child was "mongolian idiot."

katherine said...

which is a nothing job anyway.

Yes and education is so elitist. Leaders should never be taken from the most talented amongst us. Those standards are much too high. We insist they be just like ourselves. Reality tv rules. great.

mcg said...

Yes and education is so elitist. Leaders should never be taken from the most talented amongst us.

So education and talent are synonymous to you?

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beth said...

On the contrary, it is woman's struggle throughout history that made feminism possible.

That struggle IS feminism, Victoria. Feminism didn't start with suffragists.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

I mean, look, one of my talent is mathematics; I now have a Ph.D. in it (well, in engineering, but with a computational mathematics focus). I have nothing against education. But not every form of talent can be refined in the classroom; and not every talent that can be, must be.

eliza d. said...

Yes, she gets credit for making a choice.

My point, exactly.

And btw, let’s let the God of their own understanding, all these folks who get this news, decide if their decision is morally right or wrong. It’s not up to you or I or other “virulent” bloggers to decide. I would suggest that it’s above our pay grade.

mcg said...

(apparently, copy editing is not one of my talents.)

mcg said...

My point, exactly.

No, not exactly. You think it therefore follows that it was a good thing she had that choice in the first place. I do not.

And btw, let’s let the God of their own understanding, all these folks who get this news, decide if their decision is morally right or wrong. It’s not up to you or I or other “virulent” bloggers to decide. I would suggest that it’s above our pay grade.

Would you suggest the same if I decided that it's OK to murder children under 5 years old? I mean, why don't we let the God of my understanding decide that.

Beth said...

michael mcneil: your group over at the hillary forum sound like a bunch of idiots. And your assumption that I ought to vote to elect a woman, any woman, despite extreme differences of policy positions, explains why you're all excited about that flock of fuckwits.

Beth said...

simon, go back and look at what you said (11:14 pm) and to which I replied: you blamed "left-leaning feminists" for trying to destroy Palin, not the media, as you now claim.

eliza d. said...

She had a choice. She did fine by her choice. I trust her to make her choice, based on her own rational, which, in this situation, is all you can ask of anyone.

Would you suggest the same if I decided that it's OK to murder children under 5 years old?

I believe there are law's on the books for that.

katherine said...

Not synonymous, but it helps.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

Of course there's a law on the books. But there were laws against abortion before Roe v. Wade, too. So I'm inspired that things can change.

I think I should prepare a lawsuit to sue for the right to kill children under 5. I might have to start with one's own children, so that I can use privacy arguments to bolster my case, but once I get that camel's nose under the tent I'm home free.

Seriously, do you not understand the question? Saying that murder is different just because it's illegal is assuming the premise. What it is about abortion that differentiates it from murder, so that the former should be legal and the latter not? Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. No matter how much a woman wishes that weren't so, it is so.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

[deleted because I don't have time to go down that rabbit hole today :)]

Cedarford said...

mcg - What it is about abortion that differentiates it from murder, so that the former should be legal and the latter not?

1. What differentiates murder from the discovery that about 60% of human zygotes simply fail to implant and are flushed away to oblivion without any societal angst?
What makes murder different than the discovery about 15 years ago that humans and a few other high value, low birth number mammals have an inbuilt abortion clinic that detects a good portion of genetically unfit fetuses and aborts them in miscarriage.

For Fundies that don't believe in evolution, then surely God is reponsible for these two natural
mass murder practices, if you believe abortion in nature is also indistinguishable from murder.

But then if God is the greatest butcher of precious little wee babies in the womb ...then if we take logic a step further..Then Fundies, paying heed to God's Will, might have to conclude murder of sentient, born humans is also OK. If they believe by religious dogma that a zygote and a 14-year old boy are exactly equal in the legal rights that both should enjoy.

mcg - Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. No matter how much a woman wishes that weren't so, it is so.

Taking of "innocent life" or allowing it to die by neglect? Very normal in all human history.
And rational and moral in many circumstances.
Necessary. Sometimes driven by resource shortages in overpopulated times and places. Let the old, young, and useless die in famine - but preserve your contributors, fighters, and fertile females so your tribe, your kind perserveres.
And we are already being forced by the expense of medical care, scarcity of resources to ration...as most nations do.

Sometimes deliberately taking "innocent human life" is even commendable.

There is no such thing as a "guilty" enemy civilian population that must die to take out a munitions factory in war, or a "guilty" brigade of soldiers you are working on killing to the last man in the Gulf War. You want their innocents to die so that your innocents are better saved and secured in conflict..and victory or a conclusion comes even faster...

Simon said...

Beth, a fair point - I didn't state the point very well. Nevertheless, I would note that some left-leaning feminists are indeed trying to tear Palin down - Gloria Steinem's piece in the LA Times, for example, was debunked by Eugene Volokh, and one has only to consider the reaction of left-wing feminist blogs to Palin's treatment in light of how we can be certain they would react if Stephanie Herseth, for example, was on the receiving end to see that they are at least abettors if not outright aiders.

mcg said...

What differentiates murder from the discovery that about 60% of human zygotes simply fail to implant and are flushed away to oblivion without any societal angst?

Failure to implant occurs long before most people even find out they are pregnant, and long before anyone decides to have an abortion. Not a single abortion occurs in that time frame. It's irrelevant.

What makes murder different than the discovery about 15 years ago that humans and a few other high value, low birth number mammals have an inbuilt abortion clinic that detects a good portion of genetically unfit fetuses and aborts them in miscarriage.

What makes murder different than any death from natural causes, Cedarford? Are you saying it's no big deal if I come over to your house and suck your brains out with a vacuum cleaner? You're gonna die of something, so why not just let me decide that the cause of death is? Let's face it, God murders millions of people every day with incurable cancers and other inherited disorders. Instead of treating them, we ought to just line all of God's victims up against the wall and shoot them.

I'll stop there. Your arguments are idiotic and illogical, and to continue further would be casting pearls to swine.

Cedarford said...

mcg - NO, you are in the cognitive dissidence of illogical religious beliefs. If you believe abortion is murder and God designed the natural abortion clinic operating in women to cull out some defective fetuses, then you go right where I thought you would go - concluding God is a murderer.

If not abortion, then for cancer and other "crimes".

Yet if God murders your little fetus people...doesn't that in turn make our concept of murder inoperative, since God does it? It must be OK if sweet Jesus does it, so don't we then have to accept zygotes may be discardible in his eyes. Ergo, then we can murder or loosen the parameters of murder along the parameters God murders?

Or perhaps it isn't murder in Gods to flush out some other zygotes after all?

As for your trope about sucking peoples brains out with vacuum cleaners - because you cannot distinguish between a zygote and a jogger running by you, or a fertilized egg and a chicken - don't sound like a deranged ass suggesting equivalency.

You only embarass your crazy RTL cause further.

Ivy said...

If you vote for Obama because you are pro-choice, then think again. His vp pick had declared that life begins at the time of conception, making all women who have abortions muderers. Question: How, having such a belief, can he be pro-choice?

D said...

My opposition with Palin is that she wants to make all abortion illegal.

No, if you bothered to listen to her views you would see that she wants the people to decide the abortion issue - not judges.

SGT Ted said...

"Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that."

This is the feminist equivalent of calling Clarence Thomas a "House Nigger" or a "self-hating Black" because he doesn't toe the black-as-victim party line or kiss Jesse Jacksons ring.

How come you spit on the graves of the women who got you the right to vote? They were staunchly anti-abortion.

Modern women owe not a thing to anyone, regardless of their views. How dare you tell anyone how they should think and live?

Freedom to abort yay!

Freedom to dissent, not so much.

AST said...

Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that.

Yeah, right. If anything, feminism has made it somehow shameful for women to stay in the home and raise children. "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Not exactly family friendly. The career path may not have been as common as today, but it was there. What feminism has done is make that path the only acceptable one.

If Palin were a liberal, there would be a total prohibition in the media of discussing her family.

mcg said...

mcg - NO, you are in the cognitive dissidence of illogical religious beliefs. If you believe abortion is murder and God designed the natural abortion clinic operating in women to cull out some defective fetuses, then you go right where I thought you would go - concluding God is a murderer.

What utter nonsense. But sure, I'll play your game, only let's take it further. Everyone dies. Not one person has yet escaped that fate. Someone must be responsible for every one, right? Some people are murdered by other people, by active act or deliberate neglect. Some die of causes clearly traceable to poor health choices. But most die of relatively common natural causes---by God himself. So God is the greatest murderer in history! Exceeding Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, even George W. Bush!

Yet if God murders your little fetus people...doesn't that in turn make our concept of murder inoperative, since God does it?

Uh, no. I'm comfortable with the idea that God gets to do a few things I don't get to do, thanks. If God wants to take a life, it doesn't indicate to me I'm free to do the same.

As for your trope about sucking peoples brains out with vacuum cleaners - because you cannot distinguish between a zygote and a jogger running by you, or a fertilized egg and a chicken - don't sound like a deranged ass suggesting equivalency.

I'm not the one arguing about zygotes, idiot. Nobody aborts zygotes. Not one. Well, except God of course. So discussion of zygotes is irrelevant.

So why don't you draw your line in the sand, Cedarford? Apparently you're not too fond of the idea of me coming over and murdering you. That's fine. But would a five-year old kid be OK? No? One year old? Six month old? Fetus at 8 months of development? 6 months? 3 months? What is it?

Besides, you seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that the only people who are pro-life are fundamentalist Christians. Not the case.

Go crawl back in your hole.

Pundit Joe said...

"Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life."

I don't think it just became right wing. It has been the view as long as I have been a conservative. The only stipulation I would add is that there are costs to any decision. If you spend more time at work then you can't spend as much time with the family, but that is true for both males and females. That ain’t meant as an indictment of Palin – I’m sure between her, her husband, the rest of the family, and any outside help(Anyone think the VP can’t get a nanny? lol) that the kids will be well cared for.

The press/left likes to believe the right is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. But, that in itself is the prejudice.

mcg said...

From the "Whatever God can do, I can do too department."

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Dewave said...

Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing?

Apparently so, if all the media hysteria that Palin is a terrible mother for running for office while having a family is to be believed. Backseat parenting by childless scolds. How charming.

If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life.

No kidding. Dems seem intent on sabotaging the feminist movement for short term political gain.

Beth said...

The career path may not have been as common as today, but it was there. What feminism has done is make that path the only acceptable one.

That's untrue. Much feminist advocacy includes support for improving women's lives at home and in the workplace. You can easily research feminist positions on issues that affect women who are stay at home moms, from social security benefits to affordable healthcare.

Beth said...

How come you spit on the graves of the women who got you the right to vote?

What a crock of shit, Ted. Have fun beating on your strawmen.

vbspurs said...

In her SFGate article, Tammy Bruce offers thin evidence of sexism from Obama, while blaming him for sexism from his supporters and from the media.

It's true she doesn't belabour her point with examples, but those of us women who lived through the primary know exactly what she's talking about. The media, and pro-Obama websites were appallingly, disgustingly sexist towards Clinton.

She complained about it, Bill rose to her defence about it, heck even Fox News defended her about it!

That was the weirdest part of this election -- seeing Fox News actually being kinder to Hillary than all the other ones combined.

Tammy Bruce finished off her piece this way:

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

And apparently, they're succeeding. We'll see how long it lasts.

Cheers,
Victoria

elHombre said...

Beth wrote:

"My opposition with Palin is that she wants to make all abortion illegal. ... I oppose Palin because I am pro-choice. I don't oppose the choice she made."

You don't oppose Palin because you're pro-choice. You oppose her because you are either ignorant or anti-democratic. If Palin's election threatened Roe v. Wade, which is extremely unlikely for many reasons, abortion advocates would have the opportunity to make a case before state legislatures. Given their claim that most of the country agrees with them, what's the problem?

And: "...Conservative women believe they can balance ambition and family because generations of feminist women made it possible for them to do just that."

My God. How delusional can you get? There have been no conservative feminists? Feminism is about equality for women, not abortion and furthering leftist ideology.

If the liberal fembots had figured out that great issues, including sexual equality, do not reside in their genitalia (or anyone else's) the glass ceiling would have been shattered long ago.

Beth said...

which is extremely unlikely for many reasons, abortion advocates would have the opportunity to make a case before state legislatures. Given their claim that most of the country agrees with them, what's the problem?

Great. Let's do that will rights. We're a straight democracy, right? We can just run everything through propositions on the ballot. No need for legislatures or courts. Anything else is "antidemocratic."

Meade said...

"Feminists now argue that a working mom with a newborn should stay home."

Is that really the argument? I don't think so.

What I have been arguing, for years, is that the position of President of the United States is too big a job for any parent of young children. Both Obama and Palin, to meet my family values criteria, need to withdraw from this race, finish rearing their children, and, if they wish, reapply in 10 - 20 years. I have no problem with parents being working parents, in fact all parents have to work or do what it takes to provide for the children they've brought into the world.

But some jobs are to big and too important to be done by an individual with conflicting responsibilities and the idea ( now right wing?) that anyone can have it all is dangerously naive. If you procreate, your first priority should be to rear your children to adulthood as well as you possibly can and that includes both quality and quantity time and care. There are plenty of qualified candidates for the job of President besides Obama and Palin who do not have the conflict of parenting young children.

Palin and Obama's political supporters will deny it but they in fact do not really care about the Obama and Palin children. They are primarily interested in having their own selfish political needs met. They should at least admit it instead of pretending that they care about the children.

I doubt either one of them will withdraw and I will probably end up voting for McCain for one reason: I care more about advancing our nation's successes in the war against Islamism than I care about the Palin children.

Beth said...

There have been no conservative feminists?

I didn't say that. I said conservative women have benefited from feminism. I can't help your drawing wild and unsupported conclusions from that.

peter hoh said...

Victoria, your reply still doesn't speak to sexism coming from Obama or his campaign. I acknowledge that sexist remarks toward Clinton came from some of his supporters and the media.

elHombre, Beth used the term "feminist," which does not mean exclusively liberal, identity feminists.

vbspurs said...

Victoria, your reply still doesn't speak to sexism coming from Obama or his campaign.

The one remark that sticks out is his dismissive tone towards her. They all do that, but his "you're likeable ENOUGH" remark to her is almost unfathomable towards a male candidate.

He should've shut up at that moment, but no, he decided to be petty and sarcastic.

I wonder, really wonder, how Hillary's reactions were during the Palin speech. Because one got the sense she was speaking up for Hillary too.

helen BICKERS said...

Does anyone else remember the rapturous bilge written when Nancy Pelosi made her debut was Speaker of the House holding someone's infant (her grandchild)? "Effortlessly multi tasking" was the phrase.

SGT Ted said...

Well, Beth, what exactly is your point then?

chickenlittle said...

Meade said: Both Obama and Palin, to meet my family values criteria, need to withdraw from this race, finish rearing their children, and, if they wish, reapply in 10 - 20 years.

Good luck with that one. You weren't even convincing, if that's what you were trying to do.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 216   Newer› Newest»