The VP Candidate from Alaska

[Ptichka]

A 17 year old is pregnant. An only four month old has down syndrom. But she is running for VP campaign. I am wondering that whether she cares her children enough? Or whether she has time to care about her children? As a mother, I don't like the kind of mother she is.

Well, I wouldn't want my husband running for presidency (we have a 5-month old baby). However, men do not get criticized for running for office with small children, only women do. Other than breastfeeding, there is nothing that a mom can do that a dad cannot. Oh, and what does her daughter have to do with this anyway? Or you would expect Palin to quit her career to babysit her grandson?

So does she consider her religion superior to others or to atheism?

Unfortunately, "atheism" has become almost a swear word in America. People usually prefer to say they're "agnostic", as it doesn't sound so bad. I have a friend who is a Jewish atheist. He married a girl from a good Southern Baptist family. The girl, knowing her family very well, instructed him to talk as much as he wanted to about being Jewish, but to keep his atheist ideas to himself. Indeed, when years later they found out he did not believe in G-d, they were absolutely shocked! Back in 2000 presidential campaign, I was shocked when then VP candidate Lieberman said, "Constitution offers freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".

 

[Mathman]

Thing is that in an ideal laical world everyone can live as he / she wants to - as long as others don't suffer from that self-realisation....

People like Mrs. Palin who are on the pro-life side of the question beleve that fetuses are babies. Just like babies of the out-of-the-womb persuation, fetuses deserve the protection of government.

There is really no argument against that belief except to say, well, no, I don't look at it that way.

(the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon).

At one time, educational competition with the Soviets fostered the creativity that put a man on the moon.

What's really funny -- or maybe not so funny -- is that, historically, McCain is right and Obama is wrong. The United States did not put a man of the moon because of "educational competition." It was to show those Commies who's boss, especially after Russia had to nerve to put up the Sputnik satellite to drop atom bombs on our heads.

(Obama's) chances are on the decline - he needs at least 5 to 8 points more than McCain in the polls, to balance the fact that in the real election some will decide to vote against him in the last moment. Nobody talks about it - but I think his campaign knows it, he knows it...

This is true. The opinion polls will show that Obama is in the lead right up to the very morning of the election. Then when people go into the privacy of the voting booth where they can say what they really think without risking public censure, it will be, "I wouldn't vote for that you-know-what if he were running against a monkey."

"McCain's biggest problem is that he is boring, even to the members of his own party.

That is something I really do not understand. To me, McCain is one of the most exciting candidates this country has had for a very long time...

Well, personally McCain is not a fiery speaker or a charismatic rabble-rouser.

But what I really meant was, I do not find McCain's campaign very interesting because I do not see any major point on which his view differs from the policies of George Bush. I do not see McCain as doing anything more than parroting Bush on the Iraq War, on the economy and national fiscal policy, or on long term environmental concerns and energy independence. I do not see that McCain, any more than Bush, has noticed that people are losing their jobs, their retirement pensions, their life savings, their homes, their health care options.

True, McCain is not a smart-alecky twerp. I don't think that McCain would throw childish tantrums and try to "get even" with people who showed insufficient zeal in personal loyalty to himself as an individual. He seems like a sincere fellow and a sort-of nice guy. Still, an "exciting" candidate?

 

[Medusa]

Yes, if it were a pregnant black teenager, I'm sure that the comments would have been nasty. But they were pretty nasty as is. It's just that the left and right swapped their usual lines. This time the right is being positive about the pregnant girl. If it were a black teenager, the left would be positive about the pregnant girl.

As far as I know no high-ranking democrat said anything against that young lady. And for the rest it was probably one big glee moment.

These glee-moments happen if the party and campaign is big on promoting traditional family values etc., talk about how only a man and a woman can be a real family (how are the statistical odds that this child will grow up in a real family?), is keen on keeping real sex-ed out off the schools (not talking about Palin here, McCain and Bush are both in favour of abstinence-talk)... I am sorry for the girl, but stuff happens.

I doubt he has ever read his website, so the exact content of it does not distress me too much.

So everything that Obama says is artfully dissected, even if he pronounces something wrong. But don't dare to take seriously what McCain says on his campaign website, that doesn't matter. He can lie, make dubious remarks about other cultures etc. I think I see the pattern here.

Unfortunately, "atheism" has become almost a swear word in America.

What? How did that happen? Are Camus, Sartre, Jaspers and Schopenhauer out of print? We can lend you a few copies. Most young people I know read those authors at some point, become atheists - after two years about 60% revert back to to being indifferent, 20% are undecided and the rest sticks to atheism. Are these authors read at high school in the US? I had to read most of them in Religious Education (mandatory here till you turn 18 - how is that for decadence? Actually you can substitute it with Philosophy when you turn 14, but I sticked with RE, I loved it, we had such a great teacher) and some in French class.

A 17 year old is pregnant. An only four month old has down syndrom. But she is running for VP campaign. I am wondering that whether she cares her children enough? Or whether she has time to care about her children? As a mother, I don't like the kind of mother she is.

Could people stop talking about that? Who cares? There is much more interesting stuff to criticise, you know, stuff that actually matters.

What's really funny -- or maybe not so funny -- is that, historically, McCain is right and Obama is wrong.

But the Obama campaign site expressed it really nicely, that sentence is a thing of beauty.

This is true. The opinion polls will show that Obama is in the lead right up to the very morning of the election. Then when people go into the privacy of the voting booth where they can say what they really think without risking public censure, it will be, "I wouldn't vote for that you-know-what if he were running against a monkey."

And if he really looses the election I will from that day on refer to all of you (from the US) as Southern Canadians.

 

[jennylovskt]

Well, I wouldn't want my husband running for presidency (we have a 5-month old baby). However, men do not get criticized for running for office with small children, only women do. Other than breastfeeding, there is nothing that a mom can do that a dad cannot. Oh, and what does her daughter have to do with this anyway? Or you would expect Palin to quit her career to babysit her grandson?

From my experience and from my observation to others, I find it hard to believe that if a mother cares about her daughter enough and spends enough time with her, and guides her, her daughter will ever get pregnant. Yes, I partially blame her for her daughter's pregnancy, despite her daughter is a rebellious aged girl. No matter how strong any one feel on the issue of woman's revolution, you cannot deny the different role that nature (if we don't say the God. I don't want to sound like too Palin) placed on human. As a mother, the first job that she has absolutely no excuse but to do is to be a good mother. I am from China (a Chinese Canadian who lives in US) - the place where is generally viewed as every tradition has been destroyed by the cultural revolution in the 60's, and the place where the women have the most respect and privilage in the society, at least equal, if not above the men. But that has made me rethink of the woman's revolution from another angle. It's just my opinion.

 

[Mathman]

What we get from either of these guys will be nothing like the websites, which are there to collect money from the rabid base, in both cases and parties.

Still, one can't help but notice what the parties are pitching to their rabid bases and what kind of voters the respective sides hope to get contributions from.

From my experience and from my observation to others, I find it hard to believe that if a mother cares about her daughter enough and spends enough time with her, and guides her, her daughter will ever get pregnant.

If this is your experience, you have every reason to be grateful to whatever gods there be.

 

[jennylovskt]

If this is your experience, you have every reason to be grateful to whatever gods there be.

I am a Christian. Yes, your own life style, your example, and your attention and care to your daughter have such power. Believe it or not.

Could people stop talking about that? Who cares? There is much more interesting stuff to criticise, you know, stuff that actually matters.

Sure. After I said what I want to say about this matter. Move on.

 

[Tonichelle]

Well, I wouldn't want my husband running for presidency (we have a 5-month old baby). However, men do not get criticized for running for office with small children, only women do. Other than breastfeeding, there is nothing that a mom can do that a dad cannot. Oh, and what does her daughter have to do with this anyway? Or you would expect Palin to quit her career to babysit her grandson?

Unfortunately, "atheism" has become almost a swear word in America. People usually prefer to say they're "agnostic", as it doesn't sound so bad. I have a friend who is a Jewish atheist. He married a girl from a good Southern Baptist family. The girl, knowing her family very well, instructed him to talk as much as he wanted to about being Jewish, but to keep his atheist ideas to himself. Indeed, when years later they found out he did not believe in G-d, they were absolutely shocked! Back in 2000 presidential campaign, I was shocked when then VP candidate Lieberman said, "Constitution offers freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".

Well, Lieberman was right in a way... though I think he was trying to make more points (and probably did) with Constitutionalists than he did with the religious right who somehow have decided that republican stands for Christian (I quickly decided that it doesn't lol)

as for atheism being a bad word, I think that depends on where. Alaska, believe it or not, while it has a church on a lot of corners has a very proud anti-religion/God group of people that are extremely vocal... or just mention you're a Christian in a college science class the prof will go out of their way 90% of the time to belittle you in front of everyone. (I learned the hard way not to ask questions that even hinted of a religious background, they will eat you alive) It goes both ways and Christianity is quickly becoming just as hated, if not more so.

Interestingly enough the fastest growing religion in this country is Muslim/Islamic... or at least it was a couple years ago when I was taking a course that studying religion and journalism.

 

[Ptichka]

But what I really meant was, I do not find McCain's campaign very interesting because I do not see any major point on which his view differs from the policies of George Bush. I do not see McCain as doing anything more than parroting Bush on the Iraq War, on the economy and national fiscal policy, or on long term environmental concerns and energy independence. I do not see that McCain, any more than Bush, has noticed that people are losing their jobs, their retirement pensions, their life savings, their homes, their health care options.

Well, the big question is - which McCain will show up in Washington - the one we've seen over the past couple of decades, or the one we've seen on the campaign trail. I'd vote for the former but not the latter.

McCain's energy policy will be nothing like Bush's. To begin with, he's recognized the threat of global warming for a while, though his environmentalism is more of Freedman's "political" style (fine with me). McCain has long ridiculed Bush's ethanol fuel, recognizing that the way it has been put together has not benefited anyone except for the US corn producers. For now, McCain wants to build nuclear power plants to decrease US reliance on foreign oil. I agree. This is the path that Europe has long taken, and frankly I see this as the only reasonable solution for now. Renewable energy is still too far off to be truly counted on. Of course, McCain of the campaign trail is a different beast altogether. I couldn't believe he actually supported the gas tax holiday this summer...

Iraq war is an interesting question. However, it seems that, ironically enough, McCain would not differ too much from Obama on this at his point. BTW, to me his push for the Iraq war is a huge "negative" against his candidacy. OTOH, I believe that he would have managed the war differently, and it would not have been quite such a disaster (though I did not support this war in the first place).

Economy is another interesting one. The tax cuts McCain proposes actually make sense. The only caveat - they make sense if and only if Bush's tax cuts do not become permanent, which is something McCain has now promised. The two tax cuts together are, indeed, nonsense.

For the healthcare plan, I actually think it should be somewhere in the middle between the two candidates' proposals. Having spent some time on the hospital this year, I agree with McCain that America's healthcare problems will not be solved unless the cost issue is addressed. Some of McCain's proposals in that regard do make sense. OTOH, I agree with Obama on moving toward universal healthcare.

Another issue on which I am with McCain of yesteryear is dealing with illegal immigration. Then again, this is also the plan that Bush supported. And it is the plan that McCain no longer supports. Sigh...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, I am just trying to figure out which one is less unacceptable to me - the possibility of the Palin presidency, or the occupant of the White House who has attended the Church of Hate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk. Yes, I know this is a different discussion altogether, but I still cannot get over it. Yes, I know I do not always agree with my rabbi on everything, but I do not find anything he says morally reprehensible. If he said anything like "G-d damn America", you can be sure I'd never set foot in his shul again. And no, I do not think Obama shares Write's views - but that is almost beside the point, as him choosing to remain in that church for political reasons is almost as bad.

as for atheism being a bad word, I think that depends on where. Alaska, believe it or not, while it has a church on a lot of corners has a very proud anti-religion/God group of people that are extremely vocal... or just mention you're a Christian in a college science class the prof will go out of their way 90% of the time to belittle you in front of everyone

Well, academia is in its own separate bubble, like always. It is so liberal, they've had open letters for professors to sign advocating divestment of funds from Israel (don't ask me why it's a liberal thing, it just is), they largely think of for-profit work being inferior to the higher-idea one of academia, etc, etc, etc. So I seriously would not equate academia with America.

What? How did that happen? Are Camus, Sartre, Jaspers and Schopenhauer out of print? We can lend you a few copies.

At the risk of promoting the "dumb American" myth (which I do not in any way believe in myself) - the only one of the philosophers you mention that I encountered in high school was Camus - we read him in original in the Advanced Placement French class, after I along with a few other students went to the principal to complain that our French teacher did not teach us any French literature in the original except for some badly abridged pieces (I do not believe in abridged literature; I'd rather be reading simple children's books than abridged versions of good lit), and the teacher as a result decided to "punish" us by assigning something truly difficult to get through. But I enjoyed it nonetheless

 

[MissIzzy]

At this point, I am just trying to figure out which one is less unacceptable to me - the possibility of the Palin presidency, or the occupant of the White House who has attended the Church of Hate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk. Yes, I know this is a different discussion altogether, but I still cannot get over it. Yes, I know I do not always agree with my rabbi on everything, but I do not find anything he says morally reprehensible. If he said anything like "G-d damn America", you can be sure I'd never set foot in his shul again. And no, I do not think Obama shares Write's views - but that is almost beside the point, as him choosing to remain in that church for political reasons is almost as bad.

Have you seen the church Palin attends? They belong to the same movement as the people profiled in the documentary "Jesus Camp," they want to to establish fundamentalist Christian law everywhere, and they want to start by taking over the US government. By force if necessary. I'd rather have a president with a Wright in his past than a vice president who sits listening to someone preach every Sunday that democracy must be overthrown if it is in the way of forcing everyone to live they way they want them to live.
Her church is also supporting a meeting for "Love Won Out," an "Ex Gay" group that unaccepting parents force their children to attend in the hope that it will make them not gay. These groups use tactics that are outright abusive. Not to mention I'm suspicious of her voluntary association with the group calling themselves Feminists for Life, which oppose not only abortion, but even birth control. If McCain is elected, we can say goodbye to hormonal birth control-already the Bush administration is working to legally define it as abortion.

Honestly, if this woman is elected, I will be desperate to get out of this country. After 2004 I remember reading an article in which someone observed that the democrats were all acting like an abused spouse, wondering what they had done wrong. If this country elects McCain, there will be no changing it. That's my view.

 

[Mathman]

I am just trying to figure out which one is less unacceptable to me - the possibility of the Palin presidency, or the occupant of the White House who has attended the Church of Hate... Yes, I know this is a different discussion altogether, but I still cannot get over it. it nonetheless

This does not upset me. The good old-fashioned Jeremiad is part of a preacher's repertroire.

Three thousand years ago that other Jeremiah said, Woe unto you, oh Israel, you have forsaken the paths of righteousness. Mr. Wright is saying the same to America.

No one listened to either of them.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's quite obvious that Religion is used to win the hearts of the down trodden. they can look to a better after life. Not eveyone, even the downtrodden agree.

Aetheism gets a bad rap because god was always used as a symbol in forming this country. If something went well, god was responsible. If it went badly, then we look to see who to blame it on. Killing 'savages' was deemed god's will as an exception to one of the commandments. (Manifest Destiny, remember that was the way of skirting the horrors of war.) People do interpret in their favor, especially if they were brought up in a strict religious background.

Some people believe the bible to be an accurate history book in that the world only began once god became known. Others see the history of the world as something much older than than the religious beliefs. They actually include other parts of the world besides the middle east not to mention the whole solar system.

Ethical Culture is the way to go and we will probably never have a President of VP that can see that belief. It just doesn't get votes.

 

[dorispulaski]

Are these authors read at high school in the US? I had to read most of them in Religious Education (mandatory here till you turn 18 - how is that for decadence? Actually you can substitute it with Philosophy when you turn 14, but I sticked with RE, I loved it, we had such a great teacher) and some in French class

Even 45 years ago, when I was in high school, neither philosophy nor the authors you list were studied in high school. As with Ptichka, Camus in French class. I took 2 yrs German, 4 years Latin. We read Remarque's Drei Kameraden in 2nd year German. Latin was Caesar's Gallic Wars, Cicero's Orations, Vergil, and an assortment of poets. It's hard to remember all the stuff we read in English, because of course there was a lot of it--and it was a long time ago. The ones that stood out: Dickens, Great Expectations, Hugo, Les Miserables (in translation), George Eliot, Silas Marner (Lord I hated that book), moby Dick, lots of Shakespeare.

 

[Mathman]

Back in 2000 presidential campaign, I was shocked when then VP candidate Lieberman said, "Constitution offers freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".

Well, Lieberman was right in a way... though I think he was trying to make more points (and probably did) with Constitutionalists than he did with the religious right...

Well...OK, with the emphasis on "in a way"

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

2. prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

# 2 is freedom of religion. So far so good.

Over the years, #1 has become interpreted more and more strongly as speaking to "Freedom from religion." Since 1791 the United States has become a lot more "United" and a lot less "States." Constitutional scholars are ever the more eager to interpret constitutional limits on the powers of "Congress" to extend to all levels of government, including state and local. (So, yeah, that's basically what you were saying, right? )

 

[Ptichka]

Have you seen the church Palin attends?

If the choice were between Obama and Palin for president, I'd vote the former. However, while Palin could end up as president, we would be electing her as the vice-president, a position with very limited powers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, here is a great site - FactCheck.org.
What it says on Palin:
* Palin did not cut funding for special needs education. [...] She tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
* She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. [...]
* She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party [...]
* Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. [...]
* Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. [...]

If you look at the site, it also slams McCain for errors in his acceptance speech, and lists a whole bunch of other inconsistencies on both sides as well

 

[Tonichelle]

It's true - Palin has never governed with her religion. She's been critisized in her own party for that, but she's not about to push her views on all... but she's not going to clam up and not have an opinion either. It's the Alaskan way.

 

[jennylovskt]

It's true, Americans are killers. They were killing the minute they landed on countries that were not theirs. They considered the Natives as uncivilized and should be killed if they do not allow the colonization to take place. The thing about the Americans, it is always tied in with God. God, wanted the Americans to go West and kill any native that got in the way. Correct? Americans like to kill in the name of god.

How many Iraqis did Hussein kill? How many Iraqi's did Bush kill? two wrongs do not make a right. But oil makes sense. doesn't it?

Americans are killers, just ask the vietnamese.

It is cruel to think of this way. I don't think American people like this but I definately think that the Americans should ask themselves this question: Why do we have so many enemies in the world? Should we change the fundamental principles of our foreign policies?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Any invasion in defiance of a peaceful nation is cruel.

Americans are driven by their economic systems as are all capitalistic countries. it has nothing to do with changing the foreign policy. Whatever gives them the glory of profit will be the way to their perception of 'freedom'.

There are many tyrants in the World, the Americans just choose the ones with oil.

 

[jennylovskt]

Has anybody watched ABC NightLine last night? Charles Gibson's interview to Sarah Palin. Here is the article about it. The areas covered in the interviews were rather interesting. People may know the first time about Palin's views on war, US foreign policy, and global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/palin_interview;_ylt=AqfVrpD9qSgIWHadeAk0XuayFz4D

 

[Tonichelle]

Sarah saw her son off to his second tour of Iraq, she'll be in Anchorage tomorrow... and I won't be around to welcome her home. *pouts*

 

[Ladskater]

I find Sarah Palin embarrassing. Is she for real or just a "grand stander" looking for attention? She seems to thrive on media attention. Whew, I am glad I am Canadian. Our politicians are boring and predictable but they do try to keep out of the limelight- at least until after they are voted out of office!!