Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Maureen Dowd's storyboard for "The Sarah Palin Story"
Dowd makes me laugh even when it hurts. Read her column "Vice in Go-Go Boots?" and dream about the possibilities.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Criticize the Mother, Not the Daughter
by Sandy Sand
While Bristol Palin must take responsibility for her actions just as we all must, don’t get me wrong from a piece I wrote yesterday http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8962, which some interpreted as a condemnation of Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old pregnant, out-of-wedlock daughter.
The converse is true. I have utter contempt for her mother and her skewed family values that she wants to shove down our throats.
Sarah Palin is a militant right-to-lifer; her way is the only way.
Bristol has absolutely no choice about having a baby or marriage, for that matter.
This isn’t even a matter of a pregnant unwed young lady choosing to have her baby and having the full loving support of her family, which is a beautiful thing.
This is a case of you vill have that baby. Ach tung!
Since Sarah has said that the pregnant couple will wed, it’s probably also a case of you will marry!
What a lousy reason to get married. A 17-year-old is an emotional baby with zero maturity or worldly experience, let alone dating experience to choose a mate.
And being Catholic, technically it’s a pairing for life.
Parenthood is a lifetime commitment, but marriage? Not necessarily.
In the good ol’ days when life expectancy wasn’t as long as it is now and women couldn’t earn their own livings, it might have been a necessity to marry after getting pregnant.
Even 50 years ago, Bristol would only have had to be stuck in forced marriage for 20 or 30 years. Today, it could be for as long as 70 years.
Let’s face it, being shotgunned into a wedding where the couple could easily hate each other after a year, and have absolutely nothing in common within five years is no way to start off married life.
This is what Sarah wants for her daughter?
Barack Obama has gentlemanly and magnanimously said children are off limits during this campaign, as did the Kennedys and Clintons.
All three families had young children and that is a reasonable request.
But not in this case. Bristol is one year away from legally being an adult, and unfortunately for her she’s fair game just as the untamed Bush twins were and are, and the adult Reagan offspring were.
But this isn’t about Bristol. It’s about her mother, her mother’s parenting skills, judgment and ridiculous, narrow-minded and dangerous stance on abstinence only education.
’Abstinence only’ is a good idea and great talking point, but is totally contrary to human nature. It leaves those indoctrinated in abstinence, who decide to abstain from abstaining left in an uneducated wilderness.
Not only is their health endangered by contracting lifelong SDTs, but it puts them in jeopardy of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Palin is one-hundred percent responsible for putting her nearly adult daughter in the limelight and is to be condemned for it, not us who will talk about it, and Palin’s lack of judgment by putting her political career ahead of her family.
That’s Republican family values for you.
While Bristol Palin must take responsibility for her actions just as we all must, don’t get me wrong from a piece I wrote yesterday http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8962, which some interpreted as a condemnation of Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old pregnant, out-of-wedlock daughter.
The converse is true. I have utter contempt for her mother and her skewed family values that she wants to shove down our throats.
Sarah Palin is a militant right-to-lifer; her way is the only way.
Bristol has absolutely no choice about having a baby or marriage, for that matter.
This isn’t even a matter of a pregnant unwed young lady choosing to have her baby and having the full loving support of her family, which is a beautiful thing.
This is a case of you vill have that baby. Ach tung!
Since Sarah has said that the pregnant couple will wed, it’s probably also a case of you will marry!
What a lousy reason to get married. A 17-year-old is an emotional baby with zero maturity or worldly experience, let alone dating experience to choose a mate.
And being Catholic, technically it’s a pairing for life.
Parenthood is a lifetime commitment, but marriage? Not necessarily.
In the good ol’ days when life expectancy wasn’t as long as it is now and women couldn’t earn their own livings, it might have been a necessity to marry after getting pregnant.
Even 50 years ago, Bristol would only have had to be stuck in forced marriage for 20 or 30 years. Today, it could be for as long as 70 years.
Let’s face it, being shotgunned into a wedding where the couple could easily hate each other after a year, and have absolutely nothing in common within five years is no way to start off married life.
This is what Sarah wants for her daughter?
Barack Obama has gentlemanly and magnanimously said children are off limits during this campaign, as did the Kennedys and Clintons.
All three families had young children and that is a reasonable request.
But not in this case. Bristol is one year away from legally being an adult, and unfortunately for her she’s fair game just as the untamed Bush twins were and are, and the adult Reagan offspring were.
But this isn’t about Bristol. It’s about her mother, her mother’s parenting skills, judgment and ridiculous, narrow-minded and dangerous stance on abstinence only education.
’Abstinence only’ is a good idea and great talking point, but is totally contrary to human nature. It leaves those indoctrinated in abstinence, who decide to abstain from abstaining left in an uneducated wilderness.
Not only is their health endangered by contracting lifelong SDTs, but it puts them in jeopardy of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Palin is one-hundred percent responsible for putting her nearly adult daughter in the limelight and is to be condemned for it, not us who will talk about it, and Palin’s lack of judgment by putting her political career ahead of her family.
That’s Republican family values for you.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Tropical Storm Gustav Agrees To Fill In For President Bush
by Steve Young
In what is being called a brilliant move by most political pundits and Al Roker, Tropical Storm Gustav has promised to fill in for both President Bush and Vice President Cheney at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis today.
“We had a last minute choice to make. Bush or Gustav,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan. “We went with the less risky to the campaign.”
“There were many at the RNC who were concerned about the President and Vice President making an appearance, seeing it as another opportunity for the Democrats to stick on the third Bush term label.” said, “but Gustav not only keeps Bush away from the convention, but now the homeless in New Orleans can feel sorry for us.
”At first, it was actually thought a Gustav appearance would be at best, a long shot.
“What with Homeland Security , getting a tropical storm credentialed at the last minute alone would have been overwhelming.” said Duncan, “and with evangelical prayers failing to bring rain down on Obama’s stadium speech, we thought we might be stuck with Bush and Cheney. That’s when someone thought to call Rove. Next thing we new, Gustav was on the line.”
“I’m not a Democrat or Republican,” said TP Gustav. “But I know a good public relations opportunity when I see it. To tell you the truth, I’m more of a Libertarian and right now I’m leaning towards Bob Barr. I would have gone to his convention but at the time, I wasn’t even a glimmer in the eye of a low pressure system.”
Award-winning TV writer, author and columnist Steve Young blogs at the appropriately named www.steveyoungonpolitics.com
In what is being called a brilliant move by most political pundits and Al Roker, Tropical Storm Gustav has promised to fill in for both President Bush and Vice President Cheney at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis today.
“We had a last minute choice to make. Bush or Gustav,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan. “We went with the less risky to the campaign.”
“There were many at the RNC who were concerned about the President and Vice President making an appearance, seeing it as another opportunity for the Democrats to stick on the third Bush term label.” said, “but Gustav not only keeps Bush away from the convention, but now the homeless in New Orleans can feel sorry for us.
”At first, it was actually thought a Gustav appearance would be at best, a long shot.
“What with Homeland Security , getting a tropical storm credentialed at the last minute alone would have been overwhelming.” said Duncan, “and with evangelical prayers failing to bring rain down on Obama’s stadium speech, we thought we might be stuck with Bush and Cheney. That’s when someone thought to call Rove. Next thing we new, Gustav was on the line.”
“I’m not a Democrat or Republican,” said TP Gustav. “But I know a good public relations opportunity when I see it. To tell you the truth, I’m more of a Libertarian and right now I’m leaning towards Bob Barr. I would have gone to his convention but at the time, I wasn’t even a glimmer in the eye of a low pressure system.”
Award-winning TV writer, author and columnist Steve Young blogs at the appropriately named www.steveyoungonpolitics.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)