Sarah Palin, as everyone is by now aware, has been chosen as John McCain's running mate. Until a few days ago, all I knew was that she's the Republican Governor of Alaska. Now that she's the VP pick, I've begun doing my homework as have so many others and have summed it up rather much as she supports most of what I oppose and opposes most of what I support. I can live with that. It wouldn't be politics if it didn't happen.
What bugs me, however, is the continual back and forth that her nomination has brought up. In my research forays over the past several days, nearly every story I have come across has been full of comments at the bottom of the story discussing, not her nomination, but why people don't like her or why they do.
Rarely do those comments acknowledge that in many cases, such as mine, she hasn't gained support simply because our views of the issues and the direction of the country simply don't mesh. Instead, if you're a male and don't support her, you're labeled sexist. If you're female and don't support her, you're jealous of her success, beauty and/or abilities. If you're female and you support her, it's simply because she's female. If you're male and you support her, it's simply because you think she's hot.
I'm by no means an expert... but aren't those comments more than a little sexist themselves? I mean, I might have it totally wrong, but last I checked, assuming that one does or doesn't like another because she is a she is just as sexist as if one truly does or doesn't like one because she is a she.
The first few days, I figured it would go away and people would begin to refocus on the issues instead of the ridiculous back and forth once they got it out of their systems. But... it isn't going away. Every day brings new ridiculousness about how her supporters just support her because she's female or how those who don't support her don't support her just because she's female. How the men are sexist, the woman are jealous, anyone who mentions her family is evil, etc, etc. I've become perpetually irritated with all of it.
Enough is enough people! Sure, it's interesting that she's the first female Republican VP pick. But, that isn't the most important issue here. In fact, that isn't really an issue at all here. Her being the first female Republican VP pick doesn't define what she thinks about the issues or what she would like to see done about those issues. To assume it does is simply mind-boggling.
I don't vote with my vagina nor does any other woman. Men don't vote with their penises. So, why are we focusing on those bits and pieces instead of on the actual issues?
I want to know how exactly the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and exactly what she proposes this divine plan we need entails. I want to know exactly what she proposes be done to make the adoption process more realistic so that children of rape aren't passed from home to home that may or may not be run by caring individuals. I want to know how she plans to make abstinence only education work and what she proposes be done to assist young mothers when it doesn't.
You know, instead of going into every single thing I want to know, I'll simply say I don't want to know how being a woman qualifies her to be VP (it doesn't), I don't want to know how being a hockey mom qualifies her to be VP (it doesn't), and I do not want the issues pushed aside so we can focus on the irrelevant non-issues that those first two truly are.
What I want to know has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything, however, to do with her being a VP choice. The same goes for the majority of those who are accused of being sexist and/or jealous. Supporting her (or not) has little to do with which chromosomes she has and to suggest otherwise is beneath the level of discourse the American people are capable of. If that's all it's going to be... we might as well pack it up now.
I would expect that from children... not supposedly educated voters. And I sincerely hope that the next several months of this race turn out to be absolutely nothing like what we've seen since her nomination was announced.
Quite frankly, if that's the direction our discussion will continue to go, the right to vote should be immediately revoked because we aren't ready nor responsible enough to exercise that right as it should be exercised.
And that is more of a shame than the fact that this has become an issue at all.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
A world in which vaginas could vote....
I don't think it will ever be worked out logistically, unless we can teach them to hold a pen. There's always the touch screen, though.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Perhaps a pen could be inserted into a Kegel Exerciser and women could use the Pubococcygeus muscle to bubble in some circles... or something.
It would be more interesting than people like me who can pick up things with their toes.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Or we could just insert the pen into the Kegel Exerciser and perfect the hip swivel motion. Surely we can make small enough hip circles to fill in a bubble.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
Or like a pressure sensor kind of thing that squirts out ink when the muscle contracts?
I think this could be a really good way to get more people to show up to vote.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Yes, especially if we do away with the privacy screens on the voting booths so those in line could watch the proceedings.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Better entertainment than watching the conventions.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
:)) rofl
You three should not be allowed to have public discussions.
"Live above money; put your heart in front of you and follow it."
Unknown
Probably not, but what sort of fun would that be?
Beside, it would be nice to be able to point those that say "you're just voting this way because you're male/female" in the direction of a vagina voting instrument, wouldn't it? Point made, no commentary necessary.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
Yeah, I know, life online would be so boring without you.
"Live above money; put your heart in front of you and follow it."
Unknown
If we do that we need to have catchy music playing in the background and bonus points or something for synchronization.
Election Day: The Sexy Musical
Maybe we can get Uma Thurman in on this. This is going to be way bigger than any Broadway performance Mel Brooks can dream up!
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
The Kegel Exerciser in the photo has a rust spot on it.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Well, despite the vaginal exchange going on above this comment, I'll venture my own opinion. Basically, I agree, and I've heavily elaborated on my opinion in regards to this subject in one of my own blogs- it is a little dated (I wrote it before Barack got the nomination), but the point remains the same.
Interesting Huffington Post article, although I take everything they write with a large grain of salt. They have salty articles.
The Huffington Post link was in reference to the video posted with the article in which she says what I quoted, not the article itself. I intended to link to the original that was up at the church website, but traffic to the website crashed it so I had to settle. Article aside, her speech was interesting, particularly the bit I quoted in this post. Just once, I'd like someone to adequately explain how they came to the conclusion that the Iraq war was God's will and what these holy plans would entail because I'm just not buying it. One can put the God stamp of approval on it as often as one likes... it doesn't make it true or change it from anything other than what it is.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
She does not declare it to be Gods' will, as you suggest, but rather asks a church congregation to pray that our leaders and soldiers do Gods' will while it goes on. 'Gods' will' is a synonym for 'the right thing' or 'good' not a specific course.
Many times a certain course IS represented as Gods will, which she appears to think her pipeline is, which also can be interpreted as her thinking it is the right thing to do. Throughout history many leaders have used their place as purported spokesmen for God to promote some very questionable activities, so suspicion is warranted, but invoking a desire to do Gods' will is equivalent to desire to do good in the mind of a believer.
That, to me, is where the line of hypocrisy begins. It's okay, in the eyes of the believer uttering the prayer, to call upon the will of God to do what they perceive to be the 'right' thing (which in this case is fight a war) but ask that same believer if it's right for the other side to call upon God to do his will (or what they perceive to be his will) and all hell (no pun intended) breaks loose.
As you said, we've called upon the will of God to do all sorts of suspicious business. It seems to me the only time we accept it as God's will is when it happens to be what we want to happen. When it was terrorists invoking the will of God to do what they thought needed doing, they were just fanatics with weapons.
One thinking something is right doesn't make it the will of God any more than does one thinking the sky is lime green make it lime green in reality. We tend to forget that far too often.
Funny how that works.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
These coments were made in a Church by a person with no command responsibility not involved in the decision to enter into a war. To say she should have left God out of it is awfully similar to saying she should not hold office if she is a Christian.
How are your feelings in this any different from any form of religious oppression?
As I an reading it your own beliefs are the only acceptable ones to you.
Does it matter to the 3,000 dead if the terrorist that was about to crash into the WTC uttered "In shaw Allah (if it is Gods' will)" or "F**K America" as he did it?
The US constitution guarantees free exercise of religion, it does not prohibit it.
You're reading things into my comment that were not there in the first place. I'm not saying she has no right to her beliefs or that they don't have a place. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical for us to call upon God's will when it's our side, but to then condemn the other side when they do what they feel is God's will. And that is what we continuously do.
If it's what we feel is the right thing, calling upon God is fine. When it's the otherside doing it, however, calling upon God is an abomination. It seems to me that neither side is right and that both sides are being rather hypocritical in calling upon God to help kill the enemy. And those on our side, I remind you, aren't merely Christian so to say I'm implying she shouldn't hold office because she is Christian is rather absurd and goes far afield of what was actually said to something that was never even implied.
Your example says rather much what I was saying. It doesn't make what war is any more right or Godly to call upon the will of God, any God. So, why do we continue to do it as if that somehow makes what we're doing more divine or less about killing people? And in the end, no matter how noble the reasons for entering a war, it's about killing people to prove a point. And that is what my original question was aimed at. How, exactly, is it God's will? No matter if you equate the will of God to doing what is right, it doesn't make it so.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
I am talking about this particular case, not some other vague hypocracy. I don't think it is your intention to oppress religious freedom, but it is easy to mis interpret that which you do not fully understand or relate to. Since someone elses religion often falls in that category here is a closer look.
From your blog:
"I want to know how exactly the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and exactly what she proposes this divine plan we need entails."
From a couple replies ago:
"It doesn't make what war is any more right or Godly to call upon the will of God, any God. So, why do we continue to do it as if that somehow makes what we're doing more divine or less about killing people?"
From Sarah Palin(from your link):
' "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." '
Read what she says carefully. She is not saying that 'killing' anyone is approved by God. She is praying for those that ARE 'striving to do what is right' while they are there, and praying that "our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," That is a hopefull wish, not a declarative statement.
Perhaps you do not understand that Christians do not think they are Gods' boss. That might be hard to know if you see the wrong TV preacher ;-)
The God most Christians see is the truth. Every part of his will is pure good. Nothing and nobody else is good. If you see it as a perfect standard rather than some arbitrary old white guy on a cloud...
Fallon, I really think you overestimate the US voting population.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
We are capable of exercising common sense and rationality. In instances such as this, we merely opt not too. It's infinitely more fun to fling mud, point fingers, and question the decision making abilities of others than to argue a point from a logical stance. Why attack a position when you can simply divert discussion by saying the position was made from a ridiculous stance (ie: why address what your opposition has to say in regard to Palin on the issues when you can simply say they're in opposition because it is Palin and thus, never have to address the issues or her stance on those issues themselves?)
So, I wouldn't at all say I'm overestimating what the voting population is capable of. We can call upon common sense and restraint (and in so many instances, we do) when it comes to voting and what we are capable of doing (or not doing). But, unless one is willing to lead the return to rational discourse and point out that we can do better... why should we? It's easier to sling mud than actually think.
It's not that we can't do it, it's merely that it's easier not to do it. When it comes right down to it, I think voters do want to talk issues; many simply lack the initiative (or courage) to start that conversation and instead get sucked into the trivial. So, I would argue that you're underestimating the voting population :)
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
I completely agree- I always reprimand myself when I sink to the level of mud-slinger. Other people who do that drive me crazy, so when I find myself doing it, it's extremely frustrating.
I think I do it partially because there is sense of fun in doing it, but largely because it provides a sense of community- as in me and my fellow conservatives can somehow bond by attacking our common ideological enemy.
All of politics would be much more effective and meaningful if our politicians and journalists, at the very least, would exercise some restraint and logic in their debates. Plus, it would combat the cynicism and apathy so prevalent among American voters today.
I really wasn't talking in reference to the mudslinging... people are certainly capable of not doing that. I think you overestimate that the majority of the voting population actually makes a completely informed vote. A good portion of them don't vote in the first place, even if they're registered.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I agree that a good portion of them don't educate themselves before voting, but I'd probably argue that just as many, if not more, do or at least attempt to do so. Part of the education and voting problem is, quite simply, that people don't know where to turn to get the facts and are instead left guessing or taking as fact what they're being told by the campaigns far too often.
I've been doing voter education for 7 years now and still have people approach that don't know where to go to find information that hasn't been distorted by one campaign or another. Since those distortions and twists to the truth tend to suit the campaigns fine, they certainly aren't helping with the educated voter thing. It's left up to people that do know where to find that information to pass it along to those who don't. When the accurate information is given, more often than not voters (in my experience) will pay attention and use that information to make a decision.
I would rather people that weren't going to take the time to educate themselves to not vote, even if that does leave a large portion of registered voters sitting at home. In my experience, it tends to be those who don't care enough to even educate themselves who register to vote but don't bother going to the polls. Infinitely better that they're at home playing the apathy card that at the polls playing the ignorance card.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
The reactions for and against her are all so knee jerk.
Her entry has added entertainment value. It has also shown just how trivial what matters to many voters is.
Is it any wonder both parties polarize the public to get elected, and then represent the corporate interests that funded their campaigns once they hold power?
Just curious, what did you (any one reading this) think about her after her debate with Joe Biden?
I got really heated about this with my parents. They are almost 60, "whitebred" Christians living in Orange County CA. They listen to Rush Limbaugh (who I dislike) and Dr. Laura Schlessinger (who I do like). Both are loud voices in the Republican Movement.
Personally, I am disturbed by the "black and white" thinking of both major parties. i don't mean that in a racial sense, but in the sense that implies boxed-in right/wrong thinking.
I have usually had more sympathy with the Republican party, but that is only the part that gets excited when I think about Anarchy. I like the idea of diminishing the power that government has over individuals.
Lately though, I've become keen to the fact that the Republican government has imposed itself not only on individuals, but also other nations. In fact, the Republican government seeks most to keep individuals enslaved; financially, mentally, physically and sexually. In fact, the Republican government is starting to show the blueprints of "1984".
This became apparent to me after hearing Sarah Palin's very first acceptance speech.
Before I saw it, I was curious about Obama, but not really certain, intending to investigate his policies. I was also open to John McCain, especially since I voted for him in 2004.
My interest in McCain was piqued when I heard him say 'We shouldn't let a big election be about small things. We should consider a VP candidate that is pro-Choice." When I heard that, my heart skipped a beat. I thought, "That is the kind of thinking this country needs."
When his first two choices for VP running mate were rejected by the party (they wanted Mitt Romney or Huckabee,) the question of who he would pick became a concern to the Party.
Then, surprise, one day I walk into work, and my Democratic friend threw up his hands, saying "McCain just won the election, he picked a female running mate!" I was like, "NO WAY!" We watched her acceptance speech on YouTube. I was excited when it started, and quickly became hysterical. My coworker and I had to stop the video because we were laughing so hard.
I went home, and asked my parents what they thought, thinking they would be feeling just a little shameful about being Republican.
Instead, I got "I really like her, Her speech was great!"
"Oh Lord No!" I screamed in my head. This, because where I live most people are just like my parents. If she found credibility with them, chances are she also did so do with a whole lot of the rest of the country.
I only hope that like Fallon says, rational and intelligent people abound in the nation.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I'm hoping this is coherent and apologize in advance if it isn't. I feel like rat poo and have been up for nearly 24 hours (which makes me feel like an even bigger pile of rat poo. That out of the way...
My opinion didn't really change after the debate. She didn't really say anything during the debate that we didn't already know and came across, as she so often does, quite divisive when I'm looking for something completely opposite.
We've spent so long being divided down party lines and pointing fingers at the other side... I don't want more of the "us vs. them" mentality that she and the others bring to the table. It's always my way or the highway in politics and it turns my stomach to see so much of it.
I mean, come on! Does it really take a genius to figure out that the majority of the population doesn't fall into the extreme left or the extreme right and don't want to hear the typical non solutions that are passed off as original thought or propositions while campaigning? Enough is enough already.
Even here at ProgressiveU we have so many instances of conservatives bashing liberals and liberals bashing conservatives... it all just makes me wonder what the hell happened to the middle road and the ability to compromise for the greater good?
Sometimes, doing what is best for the country means making concessions and deciding that having your way in all things is less important that doing what is best for the country as a whole. Let's get back to reality here and focus on solutions... not on more mud flinging absolutely useless it must be my way crap. It hasn't worked thus far... do we really expect that some miracle will suddenly make it so now?
One of the realities of making an informed decision is knowing what the issues are, what you're willing to concede and what you aren't in order to get where you think the country needs to be. If you're incapable of thinking outside of party doctrine (for lack of a better term) or crossing those party lines when it matters (and it matters now) and are instead still pointing fingers, placing blame and otherwise refusing to cooperate with the "other side" ... I have to doubt you're looking for a leader. What you want is simply another politician willing to play the same game, the same way and accomplish relatively little.
Semi-rant (not directed at anyone in particular I should add... I just have a bad habit of the entire you usage) finished... I haven't yet decided who I am voting for. I'm still doing my homework on third party candidates before making that final decision and walking into my polling place.
Is a third party candidate a long shot? Certainly... but I'd rather go into that box and vote for a long shot than to come out of that box wondering if I fully considered all options. Until I know I've done that... I'll remain undecided.
-----
~Fallon~
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.- Russell
-----