![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Blah blah blah.
Okay, I honestly wasn't going to post anything political today, but then I saw this article about Sarah Palin's interview on ABC last night, and this bit in particular:
Interestingly, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis earlier told radio host Hugh Hewitt that the media's coverage of Palin amounts to an "attack on Christianity" itself.
Um, whut? Is this serious? Criticizing McCain's VP choice because it was clearly a political selection rather than a logical one; because she has the wrong ethos and temperament to be mayor of a town of 5,000, let alone Vice President (or, all-too-conceivably, President) of the nation; because she doesn't just disrespect the separation of Church and State, she'd like to trample it into the ground.. calling her out on any of that means one is either sexist or attacking Christianity?
The point Davis was really trying to make is that religion, as a personal thing, should not be made an issue when looking at the candidates, but the media is making it one and is doing so in a way that often derides the faith of some of these people. That's fair enough in theory. But you know what? It isn't the media's fault if the candidates themselves are the ones bringing their religion into the public arena, like in the furor over abortion, like in the desire to legislate abstinence-only sex education, like in the move to mandate the teaching of creationism and other pseudo-science in public schools, like when a candidate for national office speaks before an audience and says that our soldiers are in Iraq "on a task from God."
Don't worry, one of these days I'll get the memo and stop longing for things to Just Make Sense.
Interestingly, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis earlier told radio host Hugh Hewitt that the media's coverage of Palin amounts to an "attack on Christianity" itself.
Um, whut? Is this serious? Criticizing McCain's VP choice because it was clearly a political selection rather than a logical one; because she has the wrong ethos and temperament to be mayor of a town of 5,000, let alone Vice President (or, all-too-conceivably, President) of the nation; because she doesn't just disrespect the separation of Church and State, she'd like to trample it into the ground.. calling her out on any of that means one is either sexist or attacking Christianity?
The point Davis was really trying to make is that religion, as a personal thing, should not be made an issue when looking at the candidates, but the media is making it one and is doing so in a way that often derides the faith of some of these people. That's fair enough in theory. But you know what? It isn't the media's fault if the candidates themselves are the ones bringing their religion into the public arena, like in the furor over abortion, like in the desire to legislate abstinence-only sex education, like in the move to mandate the teaching of creationism and other pseudo-science in public schools, like when a candidate for national office speaks before an audience and says that our soldiers are in Iraq "on a task from God."
Don't worry, one of these days I'll get the memo and stop longing for things to Just Make Sense.
no subject
linkeinabook: "People keep saying what a horrible choice McCain made and yet it has given him a great jump in the polls."
Um...isn't that what cp said?
The very fact that she's turning this into a sexist issue makes her a bad person. Just on that 1 fact alone. She's playing the sex card with one hand and the martyr card with the other. Christians LOVE to play the martyr card and try to twist anything and everything into an attack on their religion. Shame on her. As a female, I am HIGHLY offended that she is shaming my sex and setting a very poor example. Lately I'm hearing nonsense from women all over attempting to make nonsense into a sexist issue. That whole, "Shrill is sexist," bullshit for one. Shrill is a word that describes a sound. My husband is shrill when he yells, but he has a penis. The neighbor's kid, who also has a penis, and has the most annoyingly shrill screams when he's in the pool.
Here's another example, "It is funny how Washington inexperience is only an advantage when you have the privilege of a Y chromosome..." excuse me? Very very few people against Palin are concerned about what's between her legs. Most of us are concerned about what's between her ears.
no subject
Has Palin been in "executive" positions longer than Obama? Yes, she has, but when you consider that you're talking about a teensy tiny town (about 5,000 citizens when she was in office) and the 47th state in the Union in terms of population.. well, it really doesn't say much, especially when you consider that she needed a lot of help just to run the town of Wasilla (see the Anne Kilkenny letter here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/sarahpalin.asp)). Besides, it all depends on how you spin it, doesn't it? When Obama first stepped forward as a potential candidate, his "inexperience" was regarded as a good thing, since his platform was one of bringing a new point of view to Washington. Palin wants to bring her inexperience along with the same old Republican nonsense and conservative Christian agenda that has no place in government. If she were a man I'd be saying the exact same thing, though it also wouldn't be such a hot issue because no man would have given McCain the boost she has. I think there's more reverse sexism at play here than misogyny, and THAT is where the martyr card comes in, though I think it's her defenders playing it rather than Palin herself.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
no subject
You meant Forrest, for example.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
BAH HAHAhahahahahaha
no subject