« Will Palin Cost McCain Gay Polar Bear Vote? | Main | Palin Offers Both Sides A Disturbing Look In Mirror »

August 31, 2008

Palin Derangement Syndrome Begins

Well that didn't take long. The reality based community have begun the obligatory self-beclowning contest. Via Glenn Reynolds, we present Contestant #1:

On the other hand, claims that Palin faked her pregnancy would have to count as dumber . . . .

Dumb has nothing to do with it. The truly scary thing is that these people are serious. But wait! Unbelievable as it may seem there's even more blithering idiocy where this came from!

Not content with slandering Palin's teenaged daughter (never mind all that righteous indignation about leaving candidates' wives out of the campaign - that was just for show), now Obama supporters are demonstrating their deeply held convictions about a woman's right to control her reproductive destiny.

You remember that, don't you? Senator Obama was quite explicit on this point. A woman's original decision regarding her reproductive destiny must not be questioned:

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Senator Obama's state Senate vote on abortion continues to draw criticism from all sides. And now audiotapes have surfaced of the Illinois senator arguing against the bill that would have protected babies who survive a botched abortion.

Now listen to this.

BARACK OBAMA, (D) ILLINOIS SENATOR: And that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the decision to induce labor and perform an abortion.



Yep. Those lofty principles sure can prove inconvenient. And when they get in the way they must be sacrificed to expediency. So much for a woman's right to control her own reproductive destiny! And that pesky right to privacy thing? Out the window! Enter Contestant #2:

It's almost as if the Dems can't help but to resort to misogynistic antagonism in dealing with Gov. Sarah Palin. This comes courtesy of Alan Colmes, citing Rogers Cadenhead who questions Palin's maternal abilities:

One bit of weirdness associated with Palin concerns the birth of her youngest child. As the Alaskan media reported, Palin was attending an energy conference in Texas on April 18 when her water broke four weeks before her due date. After this happened, Palin didn't head to a hospital or even leave the conference, even though the premature rupture of fetal membrances [Ed note: Huh???] is normally a cause for an immediate examination by an obstetrician, who will observe the fetus on a monitor to guard against infection and other life-threatening complications. Two other reasons for heightened concern were Palin's age, 43, and the fact that prenatal testing indicated the child had Down syndrome.

Palin stayed at the conference and delivered a 30-minute speech, then boarded a 12-hour Alaska Airlines flight from Dallas to Anchorage, neglecting to tell the airline her water had broken — most airlines won't fly a woman in labor. The motivation for all of this appears to be the Palins' desire that the child be born in Alaska. Her husband Todd told the Anchorage Daily News, "You can't have a fish picker from Texas."

When she arrived home, Palin was hospitalized immediately and the baby was born prematurely after labor was induced in the middle of the night.

So let's look at the "charges" here:

Governor Palin stands accused of wanting to control her own reproductive destiny endangering her "fetus".

As we all know, this is something the reality based community finds utterly unacceptable. And then there's the troubling matter of the way Governor Palin neglected to tell the flight crew her water had broken! Apparently she was supposed to have done this because...

[wait for it]

...most airlines won't fly a woman in labor.

Except Gov. Palin wasn't in labor yet:

When she arrived home, Palin was hospitalized immediately and the baby was born prematurely after labor was induced in the middle of the night.

Now maybe it is just me, but normally doctors don't have to induce labor if one is already in labor. Oh wait a minute -- my bad. Logic and facts tend to interfere with the narrative, don't they?

The real question here is this: according to Barack Obama nothing must be allowed to interfere with a woman's absolute right to control her own reproductive destiny. You know: that whole "right to privacy" thing? It's sacrosanct... except when it gets in the way of the narrative:

... essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the decision to induce labor and perform an abortion.

According to Obama supporters, he doesn't support infanticide. He supports a woman's right to determine her reproductive destiny. Governor Palin consulted her physician and then made an informed decision regarding her reproductive destiny. But Obama supporters think a live child is a "risky" outcome that disqualifies her from being Vice President of the United States?

Lovely. I'm pro-choice and this doesn't make sense.

Grim was right. This kind of nonsense survives only because people deliberately refuse to think about the policies and candidates they support. I support limited abortion rights, but I don't delude myself about what it is I am supporting and I don't support the unconditional "right" of a woman to "choose" certain things:

You can't "let" a baby live. A baby will not live if you do not care for it. At that moment -- the one being discussed, when a baby has survived an abortion attempt and is now delivered and alive -- we must make a decision. We must accept the child into the human community and care for it, or let the baby die.

These people have maintained all along that a fetus is not a baby. It has no rights.

So what, precisely, are the grounds for people who support unlimited abortion rights to question any action of Governor Palin's in relation to her pregnancy? Obama supporters favor the unconditional right of a woman to have her baby cut into pieces, without any anaesthesia, while fully alive and conscious; but not for her to board a plane to Alaska, while not even in labor yet, and after consulting her physician?

On what basis? That she was "endangering" a fetus they claim is not human and has no rights?

This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty, and it's pathetic.
I wondered what these people were going to do after Bush was gone.

I think we have our answer: Bush Derangement Syndrome will be replaced by Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by Cassandra at August 31, 2008 11:32 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2357

Comments

So what, precisely, are the grounds for people who support unlimited abortion rights to question any action of Governor Palin's in relation to her pregnancy?

The grounds that whatever works, is justified. The means justify the ends, after all, Cass.

Crazy is as crazy does, Cass. In those cases, derangement is it, period. You don't need a reason or politician to be its motto.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 06:28 PM

The Democrats are like Saudi Princes, Cass. Half the things they say are for domestic consumption and the other half as PR management.

It is not that they don't have certain things they refuse to give up, like wealth, power, and status, but it is that it doesn't particularly matter to them what they say or do so long as they benefit. So long as there is a benefit to it, they'll do it or say it.

If there is a hope of getting pro-life Republicans arguing about Palin's "reckless" birthing procedure or even if it gets Republicans busy defending Palin, this will have given benefit and value to the Left. When a person is defending himself, he ain't looking at the big picture or the long term. That's perfectly suitable to the Leftist utopian light workers. Cause they got the future fixed on a certain path, the path of O.

Leftists speak about fighting a world or a nation dominated by mega corporations that trample on people's rights and social justice.

Leftists also talk about making the federal government into a totalitarian entity that will have the power to take care of you, like a legal guardian, from cradle to grave.

These two things are perfectly consistent in their minds, Cass. Perfectly consistent, as is the case also for their views on Palin.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 06:43 PM

Hey, some people just need to die, Cass. Terrorists and criminals like Tookie? They need to live and have a fair chance at it at that.

That's how it works. That's what justice, social justice, means. Those with the power to exploit others, get to survive and prosper, while those without the power, gets to die and suffer.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 06:46 PM

We all know, she's a heartbeat away from the big red button. Ya know those pregnant womyns can't be trusted.

This is truly amazing. I would have never believed that some people thought this way in this day and age.

Posted by: Allen at August 31, 2008 07:00 PM

There's nothing quite so refreshing as the unexpected breeze raised in a political vacuum.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 31, 2008 07:17 PM

Colmes' idiocy aside, and this isn't intended to slam men but Alan Colmes in particular, but since when did Alan Colmes become an expert on how she carried, when she went into full labor and the difference between braxton-hicks and true labor?

I would think, that after having had a coupla children previously, she Might Have A Clue. Not only that, I don't know about you, but after some pretty weird experiences with the Army and overseas deliveries, the last place I would want to be is in a strange town with a strange doctor who doesn't know me or the details of my pregnancy. Not to mention being away from family.

Now, we can get into the minutia of the cost of the plane, insurance coverage and why this privileged woman did what she did...but don't you dare critique the darlings of the medicare delivery crowd!

What a bunch of whiners.

Posted by: Cricket at August 31, 2008 07:21 PM

Allen, your comment brought back a particularly nasty memory of just that very thing.

The Engineer had been transferred to a Midwestern Army post. Shan't say where in case the housing peoples who were there at the time are listening.

Anyhoo, I was EXTREMELY well along in my fourth pregnancy, and after a long, grueling trip of crossing the plains in winter, arrived at said base. The Engineer proceeded to sign for quarters.

We needed a four bedroom set, he told them. Why? they asked. Because she is pregnant with our fourth child and regulations state that there are only two children per room. We have three boys already; this one is a girl.

Hm, said housing. Are you sure she is expecting?
She needs to get a signed cert of pregnancy from the doc at the base hospital and bring it here.

Uh...that was when I pitched a fit. I made him go back in there to see the reg that demanded such an invasion of my privacy.

There was none.

We did get the four bedroom quarters and our daughter was born two weeks after we moved in.

Posted by: Cricket at August 31, 2008 07:28 PM

Oh, and the reason they gave for this non-regulated invasion of my privacy was that...

"...could have miscarried on the trip and LIED to get the larger set of quarters."

Like our neighbors did, who had ONE child and visitation during summers and holidays of his son.

Sure.

Whatever.

Posted by: Cricket at August 31, 2008 07:31 PM

Does anyone remember Leftists or hippies talking about that "Father knows best" line is so retro and invasive of one's personal liberties and privacy?

Obviously the new age Leftist and Democrat (don't forget the and) new creation of "Obama knows best" is so superior to the age old traditions they destroyed to pave way for the new. Like partial and actual birth abortions. Paving the way for the new.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 07:53 PM

. I would have never believed that some people thought this way in this day and age.

You haven't been to a Democrat re-education camp, lately, it seems.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 08:04 PM

Cricket, this one is flat out amazing to me. It's mind boggling, and it's so denigrating to women.

"She's pregnant therefore she can't think," the party with women's interests in mind. BS.

By the way how old is your daughter? Boys, pfft,
love my son to death but, "get your butt out there and work."

Posted by: Allen at August 31, 2008 08:15 PM

The criticism is a little bit more nuanced than that, Allen. You would know exactly how nuanced if you joined up with the Church of the Left and accepted their dogma and religious laws.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 08:19 PM

Fine summation, Cass.

Posted by: Grim at August 31, 2008 08:25 PM

In a more serious note, I issue a challenge.

People should ask themselves what is the key philosophical axiom and assumption that powers the entire platform of Leftist, Democrat, Code Pink, and CAIR institutions and policies. Mind you, this is not what they claim, this is what they act as if it is true. Not what they say, but what they do.

If you ask me, I believe their fundamental philosophy is that those with power have the right and ability to do anything they want to those without power.

Now, if you believe that this is true, everything the Left does suddenly starts making sense. Palin is a threat because she could potentially get some power. And then where will the Democrats be? Sharing power? No, power cannot be shared, not under that philosophy. Not under the philosophy of the Leftist Revolutionary model that powered and burned down Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Russia, and many more nations currently so far unnamed.

The idea behind the US Constitution of sharing power, of working together, even with your opponents, to creating a better world than you could do so alone... requires a different philosophy.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 08:36 PM

Ymarsakar, my horses make more sense than this. While I bitterly cling to the saddle...

Horn grabber is their thing, ask Grim about it.

Time to ride, Cheers.

Posted by: Allen at August 31, 2008 08:38 PM

There are times, Grim, when I begin to despair for the political process in this country.

I try to assume that people on both sides act out of basic goodwill - that we just value things differently. I don't buy the 'we're good, they're evil' line. But when I read things like this, I don't know what to think anymore.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2008 09:10 PM

Ymarsakar, my horses make more sense than this.

Mebe cause horses don't try to delude themselves into thinking that they aren't part of a pack: with the pact leader being the human.

Horn grabber is their thing, ask Grim about it.

There's your cue, Grim. What's horn grabber?

But when I read things like this, I don't know what to think anymore.

Have confidence that what was constructed with the blood of countless generations of Americans, cannot be shattered with so little effort. It won't require as many years as one century or two, but it still requires time. If a nation is made in 200 years and made stronger every decade, then to destroy it and undermine its foundations, you would need 20 years, with each year dismantling a key supporting structure.

You will know when pillars start getting smashed and the house becomes structurally unstable. The KELO Act, anti-nuclear power legislation, anti-oil refinery, anti-US independent energy policies, anti-independent thinking on universities, all are part of the game. But they are small parts and small operations, not large ones. They are designed so that the tools to make the tools are created, and only then will the real work of de-constructing what is known as America, shall begin.

People are still in the process of creating, preparing, and electing tools like Obama. It will come a time yet, but it'll be in the future, depending on current generations conduct themselves. Nothing prevents an individual from throwing away his ancestral inheritance to fund self-destructive behavior, Cass. Nothing prevents it, for our society is free, and that means that you are free to win or lose, succeed or fail, based upon your will, your determination and effort.

Liberty means good stuff as well as the bad, bad as well as the good. Obama and Ayers are free to conduct their sabotage operations without limit, except with the limit of reality.

All this stuff about Palin? Smaller than small beans.

*****************

People have always been troubled by the concept and reality that while a government focused on individual liberties can produce great wealth and prosperity, it can only do so at the cost of allowing people to fail.

The dichotomy is best seen by the Leftist challenge "when the Iraqis vote you out of Iraq, will you really accept it and leave". This challenge, when de-constructed, simply means that classical liberals, we who are accused of such a state of crime, only praise liberty when it is convenient to us. When liberty means negative choices or failure for our goals, we will override liberty, as any one with common sense would, and impose our own will on others.

But that's not it. Nor is it, when we say that most of Iraqis back in 2004 didn't know what they wanted, poll or no poll. For those that knew what they wanted, they didn't know how to get it. Some thought kicking the US out was good. Some thought dividing up Iraq was the way. Others thought allying with Sadr and Iran was the way to get what they want. Some even thought allying with AQ and allowing them into their cities and towns, like Fallujah, was the ticket to the goods.

Individuals cannot make decisions of their own free will when their choices are determined by violence and force in the hands of others. It is part of the justification for why insane people can't be considered mentally competent to stand trial or be found 'guilty'. Although, I would say they are guilty by reason of insanity, not innocent by reason of insanity.

The legal framework, nonetheless, is there concerning invaliding someone's will based upon any number of criteria. Insanity, being a minor, etc.

People do not like this concept in any shape or form. They do not like to recognize that free will can only exist in the absence of the initiation of force and violence. They also don't like to recognize the reality that this implies that people are free to self-destruct, so long as they don't harm anybody else.

That is what government, social justice, and Obamanation is for, after all. To make you better than what you could be on your own. Or at least, that is what the Left sees those three things as.

***********

On the subject of Democrats vs Republicans, a lot of the propaganda material being produced by Democrats to describe Republicans has a very long strategic perspective. You see, it is always easier to justify violence and force against somebody when you have convinced people that violence and force have already been used by the offending member.

Russia's use of violence against Georgia becomes justified when Georgia is seen as the 'aggressor'.

For the morally weak, the mentally incompetent, the useful idiots of the pack, and the puppet masters in the world, justifying aggression by painting the other party as the attacker is incredibly useful.

As a side effect, it also totally makes irrelevant people's worries about the consequences of free will, individual liberty, and personal accountability. If force is being used, then obviously your will is not free, and if your will is not free, then you cannot be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Right?

Most people are followers. They don't want to utilize their free will to make it or lose it on their own. Most people like to actually have a support mechanism as part of the tribe and social hierarchy that makes up human civilization, small or greater. Why? Because most people recognize the reality that being by yourself makes you very vulnerable to organized raiders, pirates, jackers, and various other asocial organizations.

Some people are loners or frontiersman, but they still value the importance of family. Others are serial killers and they don't value social standards or expectations at all.

But statistically, that makes sense. The bell curve represents most of humanity, with outliers at one end compared to the other. At the left, you have your serial killers and pirates. At the other end of the human spectrum, that 2-5%, you have the Teddy Roosevelts, the Churchills, and the Reagans.

The Democrats are perfectly correct on this one point. Somebody has to follow and somebody has to lead, with most doing the following. Somebody has to sacrifice and somebody has to choose who gets to sacrifice or not. What they are wrong on is who is supposed to be doing the deciding".

Classical liberals want the best of human society and civilization to make those types of decisions and choices, if we cannot make it for ourselves in our individual lives. We want that top 5%, that top 1% even. The Democrats want the bottom 25% of humanity in charge. Therein, lies the problem.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 10:01 PM

I truly wonder what is going to happen in our future, when the worldview of the left and the right are so far apart that they cannot agree that a baby born alive is, well, alive.

I think that Ymarsakr above makes some accurate but troublesome points about the violence and propaganda. I have no idea what comes next, but I am starting to worry about it.

Posted by: Vmaximus at August 31, 2008 10:42 PM

"they cannot agree that a baby born alive is, well, alive. "
I can not imagine any human being, regardless of their politics, seeing the birth of a baby human being and having anything other than reverence for the miracle of that birth while trying to choke back their heart from their throat.

My kids are grown, but I can still describe in detail, the hours leading up to and after their birth. Including the first moments I held them.

That is why I will not engage in discussions on abortion. My inability to understand one side of the issue renders me incapable of participating in a reasoned discussion.

Posted by: bthun at August 31, 2008 11:05 PM

I just had a chilling thought....

Given how many doctors are trying to get women who are having kids with Down Syndrome to believe it's their DUTY to kill the kid....

Might the Governor have been worried that an "unavoidable accident" might've hurt Trig?

Posted by: Foxfier at August 31, 2008 11:10 PM

I have no idea what comes next, but I am starting to worry about it.

9/11 and Iraq was always a far more important test of American capabilities than it was of the Iraqis' or AQ's abilities. Given how close it tested the Iraqis, you can get a sense of how much stronger it is a test for Americans.

Nature, God, or destiny, what have you, always tests nations and individuals with disasters, ill fated events, or various other opportunities: just to see how things are at the moment. Are people weak or are they strong? DO nations deserve to continue on and take up space in the human spectrum of history and life or should we pave them over and make way for something newer and better?

This kind of stuff is unavoidable, for it is reality: call it what you will, god, nature, or whatsoever you choose.

When Carthage lost the 2nd Punic Wars, it was all over for them. Didn't matter what people wanted, what they chose to do with their free will or lives. That nation and city was ended, for all time. The ruins still exist in Tunisia, but that's about it.

In the end, so long as you pass these little tests like Iraq and 9/11 and Vietnam, things will be okay. Even if you fail, like America failed in Vietnam, failure is still not inevitable. Even Carthage had a second chance after losing the First Punic Wars.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 11:13 PM

Even if you fail, like America failed in Vietnam, failure is still not inevitable.

That should be clarified as "national self-destruction is still not inevitable".

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 11:22 PM

"Bush Derangement Syndrome will be replaced by Palin Derangement Syndrome."

I certainly pray that this happens for just about the next 16 years.

Posted by: vanderleun at August 31, 2008 11:33 PM

There's your cue, Grim. What's horn grabber?

I've heard the term used in two different contexts. You've heard "Take the bull by the horns"? The horn grabber is the guy who does it. Rodeo clowns actually do that, sometimes, to save a cowboy who'd otherwise get gored when they get thrown after bullriding. In steer wrestling, the cowboy himself will grab the horn -- of a steer, not a bull -- and throw himself off his horse, in order to wrestle the steer to the ground.

More likely, what he means is the saddle horn, though. You can't grab it without giving up control of the reins. What you gain in momentary stability, you lose in the chance to fight for control of the horse's intentions.

On the other hand, if it means you stay in the saddle, you might be able to get back to the reins here in a minute -- assuming the horse doesn't kill you both in the panic.

So, you know, you pay your money and you take your chance. :)

Posted by: Grim at August 31, 2008 11:34 PM

There are times, Grim, when I begin to despair for the political process in this country.

I try to assume that people on both sides act out of basic goodwill - that we just value things differently. I don't buy the 'we're good, they're evil' line. But when I read things like this, I don't know what to think anymore.

Well, you're talking about the political actors, here. Most Americans do act out of goodwill toward each other; we've just got these folks who want to win, and are willing to do what it takes.

I think we may be about to see something very good start. That's just a feeling I have. Still... you might want to read what I wrote a bit ago, and think about how it relates to current events. Think about what it means, for people attacking this lady.

Sen. Clinton has few who love her. This lady seems like someone people could love. And if they do, it will change things.

Posted by: Grim at August 31, 2008 11:39 PM

When we had our saddlebred, we had a cutback fitted to him. Being a cutback it had no horn so I had to yell and use my signaling finger instead, but I learned to like that seat more so than a western rig. =8^}

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at August 31, 2008 11:39 PM

Sen. Clinton has few who love her. This lady seems like someone people could love. And if they do, it will change things.

Ooooo, Grim is alluding to the power of chivalry ; )

The power to heal wounds and motivate men to conquer entire new continents for their lady love.

What you gain in momentary stability, you lose in the chance to fight for control of the horse's intentions.

Saw some horse tricks (while galloping) on tv and read about how steppe horse archers could ride a horse, use both hands to fire a composite bow, and do tricks too without a saddle.

The more there is a sense of competition and tension between horse and rider, the more, I guess, there is a requirement for control, political or otherwise. There's not much control over the propaganda subjects about women's rights and minorities with Sarah Palin working on McCain's side of things.

So, you know, you pay your money and you take your chance. :)

Indeed. Quoting Gringo? Heh.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 31, 2008 11:46 PM

It's true that you can control a horse with your legs to some degree, even if you don't use the reins. There are some things you can't do: for example, if you can't keep the horse's head up, you can't actually stop him from bucking.

The knee trick depends on the horse being willing to listen, for the most part -- you can apply pressure that makes it easier for him to move his shoulders, but you can't actually require him to turn his shoulders. With the reins, you can actually force him to turn his head, using the leverage to overwhelm his more powerful muscles.

I would expect at TFT guy to get the concept. It's the difference between asking, and actually having control. The only trick is, with a horse, their brains turn off when they get scared -- and they weigh, oh, 800-1600 pounds.

Ooooo, Grim is alluding to the power of chivalry ; )

The power to heal wounds and motivate men to conquer entire new continents for their lady love.

Well, it has been done before. I was, however, thinking more of the healing, and less of the conquest.

We are told that faith, hope and love are the best things: and the greatest is love. Here is someone people might really come to love. Cassandra had said she wanted a candidate fit to run in 2012: here is one who has a chance to have won the loyalty of the people fairly. If you have won the power to move hearts, you have won the power to move things.

Posted by: Grim at September 1, 2008 12:02 AM

Crossposted on TigerHawk:
Definition of Hypocrisy: Pretending to be oh so concerned about the welfare of a middle-aged woman's 5th child and the decisions she makes during her pregnancy while supporting the right of a 16 year old to end her pregnancy by killing the child at any point right up to birth.

Posted by: Georg Felis at September 1, 2008 12:10 AM

bthun,

Sometimes at least a partial understanding comes from observing both sides. My mother is retired now but she was a nurse in labor/delivery, and then in premie nursery, for years. It's been literally decades now (before Roe vs. Wade) but I still remember her coming home from a night shift so disturbed she couldn't sleep. One of the mothers she helped deliver that night had been eleven years old, pregnancy was the result of incest. I have two children and I honestly don't know if I could ever make such a decision for myself--but this is why I would rather restrict abortion, not outlaw it.

Posted by: Maggie100 at September 1, 2008 12:34 AM

I don't think it would be a bad thing at all if there was a little (or frankly, a lot) more chivalry in our society.
Treating women in a dignified and respectful way does not have to be condescending. And their seems to be damn little sense of chivalry towards all sorts of women who exist in public; maybe they invite poor treatment by their attitudes and actions, but we all don't have to be so base, do we?

Compelling men to behave by those sort of 'unwritten' rules, by pain of retribution or ostracism by their peers might also reduce the frequency of the kind of tragedy that Maggie described.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at September 1, 2008 01:35 AM

I learned to ride in an English saddle. I have done trail rides since then, and I am never comfortable in a western saddle. I am used to the close contact...

When I was taking lessons all those years ago (as an adult who had never ridden before), I was very proud of myself the day I was riding bareback, and when the horse I was riding stumbled, pulled the reins from my hands, and proceeded to step through the loop, I kept my seat. There was a time I would have ended up on the ground...

I've also been bucked off once. That morning, my instructor asked if I was up for a challenge: there was a new, green, horse in the paddock for the schooling horses (those available to the students - like me - who did not own their own horse). I was like "Sure!". We had to tack up our own horses to ride. While doing so, his wild, wide-open eyes gave me pause... Anyhow, during the lesson, I was cantering a figure-eight around the right, and on the last pass across the ring, he bucked. Not ever having been on a horse who was about to buck before, I didn't know what it felt like, in order to try to prevent it. Well, now I know ;-) That was the first lesson I ever had anyone come to, to watch me ride... I apparently did some sort of roll and ended up on my feet. Got right back on, too...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 1, 2008 03:09 AM

"around the ring"...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 1, 2008 03:11 AM

I try to assume that people on both sides act out of basic goodwill - that we just value things differently.

Horses and I have an agreement -- I don't drop onto their backs from tree limbs and they don't bite me on the rear.

I learned to ride at ten by swinging onto a horse's back from an overhanging limb when he passed beneath it, and I got really *good* at riding bareback. The horses would always wait 'til I got a grip before taking off, and when they didn't want to play the game anymore -- bucking me off was *their* part of the fun.

One day, I dropped off onto a horse named Mickey, who decided he didn't want to play that day.

He reached around, grabbed a mouthful of Bill-butt, and dragged me off.

Never assume goodwill from either a horse *or* a person until he/she/it demonstrates it consistently or you'll get bit on the ass...

Posted by: BillT at September 1, 2008 04:56 AM

Mebe cause horses don't try to delude themselves into thinking that they aren't part of a pack: with the pact leader being the human.

Horses are *prey* -- they travel in herds. The horse knows the human is a predator, but one who is not disposed to eat the horse just yet. As long as the horse is convinced of the human's kindly intentions, it will be tractable -- and horses are born wary.

Dogs are pack animals (social carnivores) and dogs will vie for status within the pack, but their social hierarchy allows them to view "their" human as the pack leader -- food provider and giver-of-touches -- the "top dog" reassures those lower on the ladder by touching it.

Posted by: BillT at September 1, 2008 06:23 AM

By touching *them*.

Darn editing-on-the-fly...

Posted by: BillT at September 1, 2008 06:25 AM

Ymarskar this is for you and the rest that post here.We did not lose the Viet Nam war. the democratic congress sold out and the South Viet Namese where run over by the communist N VietNam.
Nick Bacon
USA 1SGT (RET.)
Medal of Honor Recipient

After my retirement in 1984 from the U.S. Army, I worked for the VA Regional Office in Phoenix, AZ as a contact representative and as an adjudicator of claims. After a short period with VARO, I resigned and helped John McCain in his race for the U.S. Senate. Of course, John won and I went on to become a City Manager in Surprise, AZ for 3 years.

When I moved to Arkansas in 1990, I returned to assisting veterans with their claims. In 1993 I was appointed to the position of State Director of Veterans Affairs where I spent the next 12 years helping veterans and their families.

I was always surprised at the number of people claiming to have been Military Veterans, especially Vietnam Veterans. After opening the Arkansas State Veteran Cemetery several years ago, I was shocked to see so many of my VN brothers being buried. Then I received the following fact sheet from my good friend Major General (Ret.) David R. Bockel, Director of Army Affairs, Reserve Officers Association.

After the shock wears off, please send this information to all your address banks and local media. After so many years of misleading reports and unpleasant media comments; lets disseminate to this country the real truth, as painful as it may be.

My son, my younger brother, my nephews are still serving in harms way in the war on terrorism. Let's not let them be treated like we were so many years ago - Fight Now, Fight Strong and Fight as long as we have to.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Veterans

Nick Bacon

* * * * * *
Subject: Vietnam Facts vs Fiction

For over 30 years I....like many Vietnam veterans....seldom spoke of Vietnam, except with other veterans, when training soldiers, and in public speeches. These past five years I have joined the hundreds of thousands who believe it is high time the truth be told about the Vietnam War and the people who served there. It's time the American people learn that the United States military did not lose the War, and that a surprisingly high number of people who claim to have served there, in fact, DID NOT.

As Americans, support the men and women involved in the War on Terrorism, the mainstream media are once again working tirelessly to undermine their efforts and force a psychological loss or stalemate for the United States. We cannot stand by and let the media do to today's warriors what they did to us 35 years a go.

Below are some assembled some facts most readers will find interesting. It isn't a long read, but it will....I guarantee....teach you some things you did not know about the Vietnam War and those who served, fought, or died there. Please share it with those with whom you communicate Vietnam War Facts Facts, Statistics, Fake Warrior Numbers, and Myths Dispelled 9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975. 2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam
Vietnam Veterans represented 9..7% of their generation.
240 men were awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War.
The first man to die in Vietnam was James Davis, in 1958. He was with the 509th Radio Research Station. Davis Station in Saigon was named for him.
58,148 were killed in Vietnam.
75,000 were severely disabled.
23,214 were 100% disabled.
5,283 lost limbs.
1,081 sustained multiple amputations.
Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21.
11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.
Of those killed, 17,539 were married.
Average age of men killed: 23.1 years.
Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old
The oldest man killed was 62 years old.
As of January 15, 2 004, there are 1,875 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War.
97% of Vietnam Veterans were honorably discharged.
91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served.
74% say they would serve again, even knowing the outcome.
Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups
Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.
87% of Americans hold Vietnam Veterans in high esteem.
There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non-Vietnam Veterans of the same age group (Source: Veterans Administration Study)
Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes.
85% of Vietnam Veterans made successful transitions to civilian life.
Interesting Census Stats and "Been There" Wanabees:
1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August, 1995 (census figures).
~ During that same Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country was: 9,492,958.
~ As of the current Census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511. This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between '95 and '00. That's 390 per day.
During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027.
By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.
The Department of Defense Vietnam War Service Index officially provided by The War Library originally reported with errors that 2,709,918 U.S. military personnel as having served in-country. Corrections and confirmations to this errored index resulted in the addition of 358 U.S. military personnel confirmed to have served in Vietnam but not originally listed by the Department of Defense. (All names are currently on file and accessible 24/7/365). Isolated atrocities committed by American Soldiers produced torrents of outrage from anti-war critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any media mention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers. - Nixon Presidential Papers.
Common Myths Dispelled
Myth: Common Belief is that most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
Fact: 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers.
2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted.
Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers.
Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.
Fact: Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group.

Myth: Common belief is that a disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.
Fact: 86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war."

Myth: Common belief is that the war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.
Fact: Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers. Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.
Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall): Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov.. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action)
Deaths Average Age
Total: 58,148 23.11 years
Enlisted: 50,274 22.37 years
Officers: 6,598 28.43 years
Warrants: 1,276 24.73 years
E1 525 20.34 years
11B MOS: 18,465 22.55 years

Myth: The common belief is the average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19.
Fact:: Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age.

Myth: The Common belief is that the domino theory was proved false.
Fact: The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.
Myth: The common belief is that the fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.
Fact: The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter. One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,148 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.7 million who served. Although the percent that died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II ....75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded, who survived the first 24 hours, died. The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border).
Myth: Kim Phuc, the little nine year old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972.....shown a million times on American television....was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang.
Fact: No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that burned Phan Thi Kim Phuc. The planes doing the bombing near the village were VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground.. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture, was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village. Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect. There were no Americans involved in any capacity. "We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF," according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time. Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc's brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim's cousins not her brothers.
Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.
Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.
Read on......
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam.
The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973.
How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States.

As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However, inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous.

Please give all credit and research to:
Capt. Marshal Hanson, U.S.N.R (Ret.)

Capt. Scott Beaton, Statistical Source

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 08:24 AM

I was always surprised at the number of people claiming to have been Military Veterans, especially Vietnam Veterans.

It's always interesting to run into a wannabe. Some are only lost souls who would be just as convinced they were cowboys or firemen.

Others do it as attention-getters, because their egos drive them to be "special" -- they're the ones who claim to be MoH or SS winners, or SEALs or Green Beanies, even though they'd probably pass out if they were ever placed in a situation requiring them to exhibit some guts.

They're easy to out -- a lot of 'em are too young to have been in RVN in the first place, and none of 'em have any geographical sense.

The ones who really frost me are those doing it to get drugs from VA facilities, and they're the vermin who need to be outed -- they're stealing time, attention and resources and have thrown the VA into Overload Mode.

Posted by: BillT at September 1, 2008 08:59 AM

"to induce labor and perform an abortion"

That termonology is incorret, induced labor results in a BIRTH and setting the child aside after the birth to die is Murder.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at September 1, 2008 09:51 AM

The Left's trashing of Gov. Palin's minor daughter, is simply disgusting. Remember that Michelle Obama is a civilian, and we've been threatened by The Barack if we talk mean about her. But, pardon my acronym, WTF??? What is wrong with these people? If Michelle "This Is A Mean Country" Obama is a "civilian", WTH is Gov. Palin's daughter?

These people are scared $#!+less, because they've seen a competent woman who is off the plantation, has serious appeal, and may just lose them the chance to put an totally wet-behind-the-ears lightweight into the White House.

Posted by: MathMom at September 1, 2008 09:55 AM

I am skipping reading to answer Allen's question: The Princess is ten. She is a handful by herself. Boys are relatively easy to raise: Keep 'em busy, physically, mentally and spiritually, keep 'em fed (all three), keep 'em clean (all three) and clothed.

But we love them all so much that sometimes it hurts.

I will go back and finish reading everyone else's responses.

Posted by: Cricket at September 1, 2008 10:47 AM

The horses would always wait 'til I got a grip before taking off, and when they didn't want to play the game anymore -- bucking me off was *their* part of the fun.

I remember once I was boarding a horse when the truck delivering the sawdust for bedding suddenly kicked into gear. The horse I was in the process of mounting took off at a dead run while I had one foot in one stirrup, and was swinging my leg over the saddle.

I managed to get the leg the rest of the way over, and was just about to grip down with my legs, when the horse reached the fenceline and had to make a sharp turn. Unfortunately, I didn't make the turn with the horse, but carried on in the original direction.

Ouch.

So: even when you're dealing with a horse you know and have ridden before, it's good to recall that they don't think straight when they get scared. I guess people don't either, a lot of the time -- maybe that's why we're seeing so much strange action from the Obama camp lately.

Posted by: Grim at September 1, 2008 11:19 AM

BACON, NICKY DANIEL

"Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company B, 4th Battalion, 21st Infantry, 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division. Place and date: West of Tam Ky, Republic of Vietnam, 26 August 1968. Entered service at: Phoenix, Ariz. Born: 25 November 1945, Caraway, Ark. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. S/Sgt. Bacon distinguished himself while serving as a squad leader with the 1st Platoon, Company B, during an operation west of Tam Ky. When Company B came under fire from an enemy bunker line to the front, S/Sgt. Bacon quickly organized his men and led them forward in an assault. He advanced on a hostile bunker and destroyed it with grenades. As he did so, several fellow soldiers including the 1st Platoon leader, were struck by machine gun fire and fell wounded in an exposed position forward of the rest of the platoon. S/Sgt. Bacon immediately assumed command of the platoon and assaulted the hostile gun position, finally killing the enemy gun crew in a single-handed effort. When the 3d Platoon moved to S/Sgt. Bacon's location, its leader was also wounded. Without hesitation S/Sgt. Bacon took charge of the additional platoon and continued the fight. In the ensuing action he personally killed 4 more enemy soldiers and silenced an antitank weapon. Under his leadership and example, the members of both platoons accepted his authority without question. Continuing to ignore the intense hostile fire, he climbed up on the exposed deck of a tank and directed fire into the enemy position while several wounded men were evacuated. As a result of S/Sgt. Bacon's extraordinary efforts, his company was able to move forward, eliminate the enemy positions, and rescue the men trapped to the front. S/Sgt. Bacon's bravery at the risk of his life was in the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army."

Jeremiah Denton posted here once.

Thank you Mr. Bacon. Thank you.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at September 1, 2008 11:46 AM

Now wonder folks thought Sarah's daughter Bristol looked PREGNANT in recent photos!!

I wonder if McCain knew? More importantly, I wonder if Governor Palin will reconsider her support of abstinence only education?

Posted by: Theo at September 1, 2008 12:42 PM

I wonder if Theo is on something or could he really be that stupid?

Posted by: Semper Fi Wife at September 1, 2008 12:52 PM

could he really be that stupid

Some of us have been asking that question ever since his shotgun announcement.

Three words: Heckuva job, Sarah!

Posted by: Theo at September 1, 2008 01:03 PM

Maggie,


I understand the point you are making... There will always be horrible situations that will necessitate all involved search their souls in order to choose some solution from the available alternatives. If there are any alternatives, which my experiences in life lead me to believe there are, at the minimum, a few alternatives available to most situations. As with most such choices, those involved must live with the impact of their choice on their character and their soul, in this life and the next.

In all sincerity, I'd rather not, no make that I will not, comment any further on the topic based upon my experience that discussions, arguments, knocked down, dragged out exchanges on this topic rarely change the mind of anyone once they have assumed a position.

*offers agreement to Mathmom regarding Governor Palin* Ahhh, the aroma of fear in the morning... Lord help me but I do love that smell coming from the BO camp.

And I'll second what Mr. Brouhaha said... Thank you Mr. Bacon. Absolutely refreshing.

Posted by: bthun at September 1, 2008 01:07 PM

Grim, that goes to my horn garbbing allusion earlier. The first time the horse gets a little wonky the reins go flying, pressure from the legs, grabbing the saddle horn, we're off to the rodeo.

It would seem the folks who are so nuanced, high-minded, issue oriented, aren't quite the riders they have made themselves out to be. Instructive.

Posted by: Allen at September 1, 2008 01:24 PM

It will only get more interesting with today's announcement by Gov. Palin regarding her daughter. Just how deep are your principles about letting teenagers make decisions without recriminations?

What if she decides to follow her mother's example, and the teaching of her faith?

This choice of Vice Presidents is starting to look like an amazing lesson all the way around.

Posted by: Grim at September 1, 2008 01:51 PM

Wow...see what I miss when I clean out the garage?

I guess I owe you a partial apology, Theo...not understanding you weren't just continuing to talk about Palin faking a pregnancy to cover for her daughter. I won't apologize for sneering at your glee over the situation though.

That said, I feel sorry for Bristol Palin. Dealing with this in the public eye is going to make a hard situation harder.
Give her much credit for keeping the baby. Being handed an adult situation such as this, she is reacting in an adult manner.


Posted by: Semper Fi Wife at September 1, 2008 02:28 PM

According to this, McCain knew.

I too feel for what the young lady will have to endure in the public light. Kudos for the commitment to keep the young life and for both the young lady and the young man to support each other and the child.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this plays out in the public, on both sides of the aisle, as it were.

Posted by: bthun at September 1, 2008 02:45 PM

Her daughter will probably get married. That, in and of itself, is a whole lotta hell the new young family is going to have to face.

Statistically, the reason why the chance of having a Down's baby increases with maternal age is that fewer babies are born to older mothers.
There are exceptions; Palin is one.

HOWEVER, according to the stats compiled by geneticists and genetic counselors, Down's babies are typically born to younger women, say between the ages of 19-27...with nutrition playing a big part of it. Not nourished enough as a teen and nutrients expended in an older mom. So her daughter could very well face that with her pregnancy, especially now that she has a sibling with Down's.

Now, having said that, I am sure that the poor girl feels absolutely no pleasure in what she did
and has been tarred and feathered by the Loyal Opposition who will grasp at straws to tear her mother down.

I hope Palin stands firm and protects the sanctity of their privacy. After all, the Gores and the Clintons did with their children.

Or are the standards doubled?

I certainly hope not, because what will happen with the reality based group is that every conservative or liberal parent who has had to face that nightmare of a teen pregnancy (either their own or that of a teen child) is going to be watching the Obama campaign and liberals. They pounce, the election is over and Obama loses.

Posted by: Cricket at September 1, 2008 02:50 PM

I hope the young man doesn't get spooked by all the publicity and bolt. This situation is difficult enough, without the vultures of the media picking at your carcass.

Posted by: MathMom at September 1, 2008 02:51 PM

"This situation is difficult enough, without the vultures of the media picking at your carcass."
Yup. Maybe the major media widgets and all others should (re-)read John chapter 8, verse 3-11. Just to keep things in perspective.

Posted by: bthun at September 1, 2008 03:05 PM

They will not leave this alone, I can already hear it.

"She can't even control her own daughter and she wants to be VP"

"How's that abstinence thing working?"

and much, much worse.

Posted by: Allen at September 1, 2008 03:06 PM

How's that marriage and no-abortion thing working?

Have your great-grandchildren ask mine in a couple of generations. If any.

Posted by: Grim at September 1, 2008 03:15 PM

I had been dating my husband for several months. Kind of knew it was love but hadn't really formalized future plans except that he had his orders changed to Lejeune and not Pendleton because that was closer to me.

We married and 6 months later, I had a "preemie" who weighed 9 lbs and 7 oz.
I have never regretted my 22+year marriage or my decision to keep the baby who is now a 22 year old Cpl. deployed to Iraq.
Even at 21 though...it is a hard adjustment. I suspect that Bristol Palin and the father of her baby will have strong family support and that counts for so much.

Posted by: Semper Fi Wife at September 1, 2008 03:25 PM

Oh, cr@p. Kos himself has written just what Allen said. Michelle Malkin links here. I don't want to link directly to Kos, because Cass has a nice white carpet and we don't want them to track all their sh** in and mess it up.

Posted by: MathMom at September 1, 2008 03:29 PM

I checked out MathMom's link and I have to say I think Obama's statement about children being off-limits and about his own mother being only 18 when he was born are pretty classy.

I also think this Time article (found it wandering through links)was quite compassionate:

In Wasilla, Pregnancy Was No Secret

Sadly, I gather from what I've now read about how Kos and Sullivan are reacting to the news about Bristol that hoping everyone will be as compassionate - or even as rational - as the Time reporter is a lost cause.

I have to say, though, that I haven't completely sorted out how this makes me feel about Palin's candidacy. Part of me thinks it's irrelevant, part of me is troubled by it for reasons I can't quite get hold of.

Posted by: Elise at September 1, 2008 03:50 PM

That young people act on ill-conceived (no conception puns intended) impulse is nothing new or unique to families of any social or political bent.

One hundred years ago it was expected that when a person reached the age of 17, that they should be responsible and mature enough to be considered an adult. And that they would assume sole responsibility for their actions. Today, I'm not sure that reasoning applies until some reach their thirties.

How the Governor and her family proceed from this point on, with regard to supporting her daughter and future grandchild, will have an influence on what I think of them. Let's just say that based on my reading of the Governor and her family thus far, I do not think there will be a bus or any shoving involved.

My two cents, nothing more.

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 1, 2008 04:17 PM

Elise -

There is nothing a parent can do beyond try to instill values and wisdom in a child. A 17-year-old with a driver's license will do what he wants when he is not home. You can put GPS in his car so you know where he is driving, you can do the same for his cell phone. But a kid will make choices for better or worse, and sometimes will get away without having life-long consequences, and sometimes will have to pay. You just have to try.

I have stayed home with my kids for 20 years, because I wanted to be in the house when they came home. I have tried to be the house where the kids gather so that I know the friends, so this is where the all-night LAN parties happen. I have been a Cub Scout Assistant Den Leader, a merit badge counselor for Boy Scouts, have volunteered at school, and have in general given my working life to the good of my kids. Yet my 17-year-old, MathLad, is right now at his office and I can't say for sure what he's doing.

My personal belief is that kids are better served by a mom or dad who stays home with them. But some people are destined for greater things, and seem to balance it all. I am happy to see a joy-filled woman who is not a doctrinaire "feminist" grievance-monger rise to a position of such responsibility as Governor of a state. And I'm glad that she is powerful on the stump, and that the stark contrast between Buh-uh-uh-rack and the buffoon Biden has the left peeing in their knickers.

Huge things are at stake for the free world in this election. I'm glad that there are people ready to stand up and take on those challenges.

Posted by: MathMom at September 1, 2008 04:21 PM

And I'm glad that she is powerful on the stump, and that the stark contrast between and Buh-uh-uh-rack and the buffoon Biden has the left peeing in their knickers.

Preview, preview! The stark contrast between her, and Buh-uh-uh-rack and the buffoon Biden has the left peeing in their knickers.

Posted by: MathMom at September 1, 2008 04:27 PM

Ya know, peering in their knickers would have worked too. Just sayin' =8^}

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 1, 2008 04:35 PM

That's a preview I can do without, buuuut thanks anyway, MM.

Posted by: BillT at September 1, 2008 04:37 PM

And thank *you* for the visual, bthun.

Now I've gotta go rinse my eyes with Listerine...

Posted by: BillT at September 1, 2008 04:40 PM

Thanks for the comments, MathMom. I do know what you've pointed out about controlling 17-year-olds (I was my mother's despair) and my unease about Bristol's news does not have anything to do with a feeling that mothers "should" stay home with their kids - or else. I'm not sure what I'm uncomfortable about - very odd.

Posted by: Elise at September 1, 2008 05:06 PM

Sorry Bill,

Watching the reactions and the panicked tone from the *cough* *cough* Loyal Opposition *cough* *cough*, I came away with the impression that many have been emasculated by the selection of Governor Palin...

So when I first read Mathmom's in their knickers comment, I saw peering and laughed.

Guess I'd better make a appointment with a Mind's Optometrist to have my mind's eye checked.

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 1, 2008 05:36 PM

I would expect at TFT guy to get the concept. It's the difference between asking, and actually having control. The only trick is, with a horse, their brains turn off when they get scared -- and they weigh, oh, 800-1600 pounds.

The concept isn't the problem. The problem is, if you can call it that, is the difference between a horse that relies upon its rider and follows that rider as absolutely as a herd follows the stallion or mare and a horse that simply obeys the rider because the reins are controlling the head, and thus controlling directly some of the instincts of the horse.

It is far more likely that you will get those problems by relying on the latter rather than the former. I derive from a couple of axioms that the horse wouldn't try to buck you or panic, if he or she trusted the rider's judgment, dominance, and ability (confidence). That is an aspect of training, which the reins can be a part of, but it is still an aspect of training and not an aspect of dealing with a problem as it occurs.

In those terms, Obama can be seen as just trying to prevent problems from occuring so that more powerful solutions, like use of the reins, won't become necessary later on. That's the strategy. But the actual tactics employed by people like Kos and what not, are more about forcing an immediate result in the absence of foresight or knowledge.

War horses, for example, are trained to deal with lots and lots of things that would normally scare a horse. But Sarah Palin is no horse nor are her progeny horses to be controlled by the Democrat political machine, Grim. A horse has no free will, especially not when scared. It is pointless to give them the time and space to form decisions for those decisions will not be optimal nor what you want them to do. But the solution, in my view, is not making and forcing a solution but in preventing the problem from ever arising by training the horse to tolerate things that would otherwise make him react in a fearful, anxious, or aggressive manner.

I have never ridden a horse nor is my hobby subject of interest on how horses are trained, so in these aspects I leave it to you, Grim. In other aspects, concerning solutions applied by horsemanship as compared to human charisma and manipulation, now that I will speak on.

If you have won the power to move hearts, you have won the power to move things.

Doesn't that, then, mean that Obama has gained the power to move things due to his power to move hearts? You have not placed any ethical or moral restrictions on how someone acquires the power to move hearts; it then allows a greater degree of interpretation, including interpretations you may not have intended.

I learned to ride in an English saddle.

For some reason, that always makes me think about a side saddle? Saw one of those. Not exactly built for war or fast riding, as my view.

If Michelle "This Is A Mean Country" Obama is a "civilian", WTH is Gov. Palin's daughter?

Weak and helpless. Just like babies who can't defend themselves or talk. Some people are easier targets than others, like the Jews. They get focused on exclusively by the bottom 25% quartile of the human species. Why? Cause those targets are weak and helpless. It doesn't pay to attack strong and ruthless people. Not in the short term or the long term.

Keep 'em busy, physically, mentally and spiritually, keep 'em fed (all three), keep 'em clean (all three) and clothed.

When a boy starts running around from one spot to another, that is when you know you need to tell him to do pushups, squats, and abdominals. He won't be running around after that.

I wonder if Theo is on something or could he really be that stupid?

Both. When you're part of the Left, it becomes a state of being, dontchaknow.

It will only get more interesting with today's announcement by Gov. Palin regarding her daughter. Just how deep are your principles about letting teenagers make decisions without recriminations?

The Left always speaks about liberty and free will. They attack her daughter, not because they have values which they believe the daughter of Palin violated, but because the daughter of the libertarian and anti-Republican/anti-Democrat corruption fighter violated the moral standards, as the Left sees it, of the Republican party.

The Left sees things as loyalty to party first, and when a Republican or conservative or just a classical liberal associated with conservatives gets tarnished with some kind of anti-Rethug vibe, now suddenly it becomes a point of weakness that can be exploited for Democrat propaganda. Why? Well, why do Russians talk about Georgian atrocities in Osettia? Cause it's convenient and it works. If it works, people do it. More people do what they see works, than people do what they see don't work. The Left knows that if you criticize a Republican based upon their own values, the Republicans will bend knee and accept the dominance of the Left. It works, for the Left. And so they keep doing it. Just as the Soviet Union kept criticizing America based upon "grass roots revolutions" and "individual liberty and national sovereignty". They knew such things were stuff we found of value, and thus they used it against us in such places as Vietnam.

The Left both projects their own biases on their enemies and they act with total denial of this fact, as well. They always speak about how it is Republican values that they are attacking and criticizing in terms of Palin or whatever. It is never about their own values that have informed such attacks. Oh no, that would be verboten and totally unthinkable.

Or are the standards doubled?

Halved, not doubled. The Left has no need for higher standards. Their intention is to lobby the lowest common denominator of human behavior and mores.

because Cass has a nice white carpet and we don't want them to track all their sh** in and mess it up.

Especially as you well know how I would react if such people starting slinking in.

"Ballistic" would be, I believe, an understatement of monumental proportions.

Let's just say that based on my reading of the Governor and her family thus far, I do not think there will be a bus or any shoving involved.

i can't shove Kos and DIck Anderson, or whatever you call him, under a bus? You have got to be shatting me, Bt.

****************

As for the information provided on Vietnam, I thank you for that; however, it doesn't change the fact that when America abandons an ally, gives the NVA all the excuses they needed to hurt American POWs more, helped to destroy any hope of a South Korea being created in South Vietnam, then I would have to categorically assign that as a loss and failure on the part of Americans. And since the American military is part of the US, can the US win without also their military winning? Thus, logically, when the US loses, so does its militarily. And the logic is right, and not just internally either.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 06:08 PM

Remember Corporal Matt Sanchez?

Remember what the Left attacked him for?

Oh sure, they claim they attacked him for being gay and Republican and how that is ironic and sad because Republicans are anti-gay and enemies of gayness or something.

But in reality, they attacked him because he dared to leave the fold. He left the circle dance. Left the cult. The Church. The Dogma.

As you have seen with Islam and other cults... that kind of action is frowned upon. And whatever they claim their motivations are, their real motivations are transparent for us all to see.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 06:15 PM

An English saddle is not a sidesaddle. In the Medieval period, there were two basic ways of rigging a saddle: the heavy, bulky saddle favored by Western knights, and the light, small saddle favored by Arabian horsemen.

Our English and Western saddles descend from these two trends. However, they're not what you'd guess to look at them: the English saddle, which is today small and stripped down, is descended from the old War Harness; the relatively large Western saddle, with its deep seat and armored stirrups, comes to us from the Spanish Vaqueros, who had it from the Arabs.

The truth of the tale is in the underlying structure of the two things. The size, bulk, and so forth -- that can vary by job. But the harness beneath, that's the real thing that connects the English saddle to the War Saddle, and the Arabs to the modern Western saddle.

Doesn't that, then, mean that Obama has gained the power to move things due to his power to move hearts? You have not placed any ethical or moral restrictions on how someone acquires the power to move hearts[.]

It certainly does mean he has the power, to the degree that he can truly move hearts.

I have not placed restrictions on it because there are none. If you can move hearts, you can move things. Morally or otherwise.

A man who wishes to be moral accepts an additional set of restrictions on himself, in return for -- something. A vision of beauty, and the salvation it promises. Such salvation is real and demonstrable even in this world, but there are other things beyond what we can prove that are sometimes promised, and always hoped.

Is it worth the trade? That is the question -- indeed, once you have resolved Hamlet's question, it is the question.

Posted by: Grim at September 1, 2008 06:28 PM

I have not placed restrictions on it because there are none. If you can move hearts, you can move things. Morally or otherwise.

Thanks for the clarification. I would then use the point you have made and extrapolate it on another subject: that subject being that when people tell you that some things such as violence or war or failure in a free market must be eradicated for they are the harbingers of despair, misery, and corruption, that such things are false.

The more people have a reliable foundation of beliefs that they can hold to in the Hurricane of Disbelief produced by Leftist philosophies, the more people are able to withstand and defend against disruptive and untrue ideas.

For example, it is not about Republican vs Democrat when it comes to seeing firearms as being a tool for good or evil. A gun is a tool, period, regardless of who says it or who denies it. That is the fundamental premise upon which things are based: that only sentient and sapient beings can determine or produce good and evil. Inanimate objects cannot produce evil or good, unless they have free will, but even so, being inanimate, they cannot exercise that free will unless they animate.

When people try to claim that Republicans and Democrats are the same, you could easily believe such things if, for example, you didn't know the philosophical difference between how Republicans view guns and how Democrats view guns. It is easy to see a lack of difference, when you cannot perceive the underlying foundation of your own beliefs or of the laws of physics in this universe.

Without the genuine article before you, it is hard to spot fakes when you have never seen the genuine article, ever.

This is an address to the broader audience, and should not be perceived as simply a message for Grim only.

Is it worth the trade? That is the question -- indeed, once you have resolved Hamlet's question, it is the question.

To be or not to be, or is that another question you are referring to? ; )

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 06:54 PM

"Let's just say that based on my reading of the Governor and her family thus far, I do not think there will be a bus or any shoving involved.

i can't shove Kos and DIck Anderson, or whatever you call him, under a bus? You have got to be shatting me, Bt."

Nope not kidding, not in a million years Ymar. If Governor Palin or her family shoves the daughter under the bus, let me know. But as I said, I think they have far to much integrity to act in that fashion.

Oh yeah, regarding English saddles and variants thereof, they are built precisely for light weight, freedom of movement for the horse, particulary like the cutback saddle I mention getting for our saddlebred. All in all, a lighter, less restiveness saddle can only enhance the speed of the animal. Notice jockeys and their tack.

One last comment on this vector, I personally would not suggest that the variants of English saddles that the English Cavalry used were an improper choice for war. At one time, the English were right good at the art of war on horseback yanno. And the U.S. Cavalry saddles were, for a long time, variants of a McClellan type... Hardly a barrel racer or stock saddle. Think right tool for the job at hand.

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 1, 2008 06:56 PM

Hey, did anyone else hear about anti-war protestors trying to stop Bush's war by using bats to destroy the windows at a Macy's near the Republican Convention thingie?

That's Leftist solutions for social problems, yanno. This was complete with agent provocateurs and stuff 2!

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 06:56 PM

Man I must really be slowing down. Read the Yamar comment, get a beer, amble over to type a response and boom two comments later, I hit publish.

So let me recap by saying, what Grim said. =8^\

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at September 1, 2008 06:58 PM

bthun, I understand. I rarely comment on the issue either, I've seen too many "sides." There were five babies born to single mothers in my extended family, all were kept. I also saw a young girl from a strongly religious family literally thrown out on the street for her "sin", the boy's family took her in. There are simply too many shades to reduce it down to a simple answer for me and so generally don't discuss it either.

Posted by: Maggie100 at September 1, 2008 07:30 PM

> There's nothing quite so refreshing as the unexpected breeze raised in a political vacuum.

Are you, sir, attempting to imply that the Democratic Party sucks???

> People should ask themselves what is the key philosophical axiom and assumption that powers the entire platform of Leftist, Democrat, Code Pink, and CAIR institutions and policies....

I think it's more along the lines of:
We're complete, unmitigated idiots, and we think you should be, too...

Posted by: Obloodyhell at September 1, 2008 08:18 PM

"That subject being that when people tell you that some things such as violence or war or failure in a free market must be eradicated for they are the harbingers of despair, misery, and corruption, that such things are false."

I'm not tracking you here.

'When people tell you that some things -- for example, violence -- are the harbringers of despair, etc...'

I think I'm OK that far. If someone tells you that something leads to despair, for example violence, then:

"...that such things are false."

What is false? The violence? The claim that it leads to despair? (Ever? Always?)

Posted by: Grim at September 1, 2008 09:14 PM

The young man in this case has a chance really to show he is a man. What a difficult situation for him, all this publicity and pressure. But if he steps up, he'll have a wonderful family, and he'll have stood up and done the right thing for his baby and the mother of his baby. My prayers are with him. He's very young to have to face this crisis. God bless him. (Her, too, of course, but everything in our society encourages him to bolt; her, not so much.)

Posted by: Texan99 at September 1, 2008 09:25 PM

> when the worldview of the left and the right are so far apart that they cannot agree that a baby born alive is, well, alive.

Well, to be honest, I believe that the real distinction is more reasonable than that -- the question isn't "life" but "human life". I think you pretty much should presume that a child born is a human life (although I personally have known some prime candidates for post-natal abortion myself).

I think one CAN make a reasonable argument that conception isn't the defining point for human life, that it, at the least, occurs later -- this deals with the key issue of what, exactly, it is that makes one "human" -- is it form? the DNA? the brain? the thoughts themselves? the capacity for independent, self-aware thought?

I think you have to define it in a way which is not "humano-centric" -- that is, you need to respect the idea that there may be life we encounter which is not based on anything we've experienced here on Earth. So form, DNA, brain -- those are out. And that leaves us with thought, somehow. So it seems as though you need to identify the reserved concept of humanity -- human rights -- with thought, somehow.

Well, barring some radical development in the tech, at this point, it seems to me that four cells with the same DNA don't have the capacity for thought. There are a couple points, though, where there is an implication that this changes -- most notably when the measurable brainwaves of the fetus no longer mirror those of the mother, but develop their own rhythm. This happens to match up with the current delineation -- around the end of the first trimester.

The understanding of this notion may change with time -- but at this point, I think it's good because as a concept it's secular. It does not depend on one's religious beliefs. It matches up fairly well with the real world before technology. And it makes a degree of consistent, rational sense.

Posted by: Obloodyhell at September 1, 2008 09:27 PM

What is false? The violence? The claim that it leads to despair? (Ever? Always?)

The claim that war is always pointless or designed to exploit other people, unless it is conducted in a humanitarian style esque fashion where no lasting good is ever done. Keeping the peace in Kosovo=good. Resolving the fundamental issues at conflict between the factions in a war=bad.

At the fundamental level, it is the claim that actions, certain types or situations, are their own ethical agents. Meaning, it does not matter the particular ethical standards or moral calculations that went into OIF, what matters is that war is evil and doesn't produce anything good, at all.

Same with guns. Ban guns, create good. Ban guns, eliminate gun violence, which is a good thing, a thing even better than decreasing the number of burglaries and assaults.

It's not just a direct causal relationship people propose, such as "do this, get x". No, they want to take it to the limit and say guns and war create evil all by themselves. That so long as you stop war and violence and firearms, good results.

That is not what ethical agents are.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 09:58 PM

Contrary to popular opinion, violence, and I'm not talking about that light shove the stalker of Michelle Malkin gave to some guy that disagreed with him, can be used for good and evil. Firearms are just a derivation of the principles of violence. A machine does violence, as it is designed to do, rather than the human body doing it via arms and hands. But in the end, violence still requires human thought and calculation.

This connects directly with what you mentioned, Grim, concerning how power over people and things have no moral limitation. So long as you get it, you can use it for anything you want.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 10:01 PM

This is contrary to what the Left and big government Dems say and think. They think if you gave power to the government and Big Brother, suddenly the evil of mega corporations, that do whatever they the hell feel like, will be erased or combated by the mega evil power of the government... sure, that may not make much logical sense, when you pare it down, but it operates under the fundamental premise that some power can be used ONLY for the good while other people's power, like corporations, can ONLY be used for evil.

It's no more different than the examples I have given. And it is just as corrosive and deceptive.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 10:03 PM

The Left both projects their own biases on their enemies and they act with total denial of this fact, as well. They always speak about how it is Republican values that they are attacking and criticizing in terms of Palin or whatever. It is never about their own values that have informed such attacks. Oh no, that would be verboten and totally unthinkable.

If you want an example of this kind of thing, just look at Joe Lieberman. When he stepped out of the picture... what did the Left do? So, if Palin was found to have a promiscuous daughter or something... what would the Right do, if you believe as the Left does concerning Rethuglican tendencies? We would exile her and destroy her, wouldn't we. For that is exactly what the Left would have done in our place.

But no, see, it is our values they accuse us of violating. We are the hypocrites. THey are the truth tellers.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 10:06 PM

Actually, the Gores had children who were taking drugs and abusing Priuses. Tipper tearfully gathered her brood under her arms (this was after she urged Americans to get anti-depressants after the Goracle and Billary were elected) and pleaded nicely with the press to let them have their private family moments.

Sure thing.

Same with the Bush twins and Chelsea and Amy Carter, etc and yadda yadda.

While I had to snort a bit with a 'poor kids living in a goldfish bowl' type of attitude, that was the extent of my judgment. No one likes to see their children come under fire, and leaving them to their parents to be accountable is the best thing I think we can do. They have already been slammed in the press, are facing Mom or Dad and that isn't punishment enough?

Besides, just because you have been TAUGHT to abstain doesn't mean you are gonna, nor will you use contraceptives if you don't wanna.

I wish her well in her pregnancy and marriage.

Posted by: Cricket at September 1, 2008 10:30 PM

OBH~

It is a human life at conception. Once conceived, it will only develop into a human being. Now, something might happen to naturally cause a miscarriage, or the child/fetus - for a variety of reasons, both within and outside the control of the mother - may develop abnormally. But, it is still human. It is not a dog. It is not a cat. It is not a tadpole. It is a human.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 1, 2008 10:43 PM

This thing started to get more momentum when the chickenhawk argument started demanding BUsh sacrifice his two daughters and force them to enlist, if Bush wants support for the war and not be a hypocrite at the same time.

Now, suddenly, your children are part of your political positions. And guess what? Once you open the gates to the barbarians, they aren't going to leave any time soon.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 11:18 PM

The reason why is simple. The Left derived some benefit from criticizing Bush's daughters. Thus the Left is going to do more of it, cause it works. It worked before and it's going to work now.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 11:19 PM

The life inside a womb is analogous to animal life.

You have the power to end it or not. But there are still laws against it. There are still laws against using your powers to destroy life for any reason you deem fit. Why? Because society has not degraded to the point where life is cheap and considered worth about as much as one hour of entertainment value for slaves in the Gladiator's Arena.

But there are no laws, if any, against abortion. Is there. Lots of em concerning animals, though.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 1, 2008 11:26 PM

Here's the reality: Palin is a rightwing-Christian anti-choice extremist who opposes abortion for any reason whasoever, except to save the life of the girl or woman. No exception even for rape, incest, or the health of the woman. No exception for a ten-year-old, a woman carrying a fetus with no chance of life, a woman on the edge of suicide-- let alone the woman who is not ready to be a parent, who is escaping domestic violence, who is already stretched to the limit as a single mother. She wants to force over one million women and girls a year to give birth against their will and judgment. She wants to use the magnificent freedom the women's movement has won for her at tremendous cost and struggle--the movement that won her the right to run those marathons and run Alaska -- to take away the freedom of every other woman in the country.

Something Dr. Sanity quoted. Link

As you can see, there are some things you can draw from the text just by reading it once.

As for what they are, check out this post of mine

Freedom. An interesting word and a goal most people would agree, if only nebulously, is a good thing. Yet, what is this freedom of the individual, this liberty?

As they define it, it is the freedom from coercion, force, and violence. One's own will is the one that decides.

But they lied. And if you read my post, you will see a coherent argument as to why and how they lied.

She wants to force over one million women and girls a year to give birth against their will and judgment.

I'll leave you to decide who is forcing whom, these days.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 12:58 AM

the movement that won her the right to run those marathons and run Alaska

Sarah Palin won that right by the strength of her will and the sacrifice of her comforts. Trying to steal other people's accomplishments and attribute it to a mass movement and totalitarian system of thought, is rather coercive and aggressive, don't you think.

Even as they go on about liberty, their language is the language of violence and force.

Your success are mine. I control whether you succeed or fail. You cannot speak back to me for I will punish you by taking away what I gave you.

What is free about that? Is a student in debt to the federal government, "free" because the federal government is the cause of what the student currently has, a bachelor's?

The Left says yes. Yes, you can be free while being a slave to somebody else's will and power. Yes, you can be free, so long as you stay on the plantation and don't go anywhere you aren't supposed to go. Or think.


Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 01:02 AM

Katha Pollitt says: She wants to use the magnificent freedom the women's movement has won for her at tremendous cost and struggle--the movement that won her the right to run those marathons and run Alaska -- to take away the freedom of every other woman in the country.

Ms. Katha doesn't know jack about Alaskan women. Women in Alaska do everything they do just because Alaska is truly the Last Frontier, and no one harshes your mellow up there. If a woman wants to live alone out in the bush in a cabin only accessible by dogsled (see Susan Butcher), she will. When you get outside of Anchorage you'll see signs on fenceposts saying "Trespassers will be shot". They mean it.

We left Alaska in 1991. Even way back then, the unofficial motto of Alaska was, "Where The Men Are Men, and Women Win The Iditarod".

Posted by: MathMom at September 2, 2008 06:59 AM

_...the movement that won her the right to run those marathons and run Alaska..._

About nine months ago, my mother in law passed away. She had grown up in Territorial Alaska, at a time well before the feminist movement had any great impact. This was, though, after women gained the right to vote in national elections in 1919 -- a right they had in Alaska since the very foundation of its territorial assembly, seven years earlier, and a right that was often recognized by frontier legislatures at a time when the 'civilized' East was still debating the question.

She hunted elk, fought grizzly, and served on wilderness search and rescue teams until one day she found a friend of hers -- too late. All of this was before Gov. Palin was born.

It wasn't the feminist movement that gave frontier women their rights. It was the frontier women. The feminists deserve some credit for unmaking some bad rules back in the civilized East, and in Europe; but out in the American wilderness, women have done pretty well right along.

Posted by: Grim at September 2, 2008 08:39 AM

Alaska became a state 50 years ago, and thus did not have to give up women's voting rights like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakota Territories did back in the 19th centuries, Grim.

I know because my great-grandmothers voted...and were Not Pleased when that right was taken from them as a condition of statehood...but I digress.
Palin rocks.

Posted by: Cricket at September 2, 2008 08:59 AM

MathMom, did you ever see part of the Iditarod?
Jonathan and I used to follow it online. That race is just totally awesome.

Posted by: Cricket at September 2, 2008 09:05 AM

I also don't like how people try to erase from history the fact that it was WWI and WWII that gave the critical impetus society needed to reform itself and rethink things concerning women.

It wasn't done cause a bunch of Feminists carried a bunch of slogans and made people change their ways. People changed their ways cause war allowed them to see another side to women. A side that they could find common cause with and could not refuse to respect.

These people speak much of liberty, but what they speak about war are fabrications and delusions. And when war creates liberty, is not their liberty then fabricated as well?

The same harsh conditions in Alaska are mirrored in war. Economic destitution, disasters, and various other things require good independent and critical thinking. Nobody is required to help you, if you mess things up, just like in war. Why? Cause everybody is too worried about making sure that they survive as well, and they're not going to lay out the red carpet for you just because you think you're special. The enemy will make sure of that, if we don't.

When people, men and women, find common cause in conflict with other humans or the forces of nature, what tends to get produced are self-sufficient folks. And self-sufficient folks have no self-delusions concerning how keeping women powerless empowers them.

When your very life depends on your partner, the wife, being competent, it does not pay at all to try to restrict her power or liberty. That liberty might save your arse some day.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 09:19 AM

This also means that the Democrats are fine with restricting the liberty and powers of their political opponents. It is not a partnership to them. They don't rely upon nor do they want to rely upon, the opinions, views, and experiences of conservatives or Republicans.

That is why they expelled Lieberman, after all.

Republicans expel people from their party as well, but they do it for reasons like morality or attempts to disassociate themselves from people like Thurgood and Lott. Morality is not the best reason to craft policy and strategy on, but it is not the worst foundation, all in all.

Feminists or Leftists can speak as much as they want about "liberty". They know nothing about how to create and sustain liberty or the conditions from which liberty becomes valued and important.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 09:26 AM

Much of the Suffrage movement had problems with convincing greater society that women aren't the fragile and china dolls that most men saw them as. They could, indeed, take care of themselves.

The leaders of the Suffrage movement were symbols of this independence, for their leadership came from the core, not from subsidizations from government or greater society.

Their problem was "how to convince everybody else". War was how to convince everybody else.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 09:31 AM

John MIlton Friedman's essay on "The Subjection of Women" is also an interesting historical primary document.

Certain individuals back in the 19th and early 20th century knew the potential of power. They just couldn't convince everybody of that fact.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 09:32 AM

Whoops, mis-attribution. John Stuart Mill.

Link to his stuff

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 09:33 AM

His conclusion.

When we consider the positive evil caused to the disqualified half of the human race by their disqualification — first in the loss of the most inspiriting and elevating kind of personal enjoyment, and next in the weariness, disappointment, and profound dissatisfaction with life, which are so often the substitute for it; one feels that among all the lessons which men require for carrying on the struggle against the inevitable imperfections of their lot on earth, there is no lesson which they more need, than not to add to the evils which nature inflicts, by their jealous and prejudiced restrictions on one another. Their vain fears only substitute other and worse evils for those which they are idly apprehensive of: while every restraint on the freedom of conduct of any of their human fellow-creatures (otherwise than by making them responsible for any evil actually caused by it), dries up pro tanto the principal fountain of human happiness, and leaves the species less rich, to an inappreciable degree, in all that makes life valuable to the individual human being.

For those who want a translation, here it is.

Men are more powerful when they don't try to make each other into slaves, harem or otherwise.

Your good intention of saving civilization and society does not justify committing injustice against any part of humanity, including women. (Stop Arabic and Islamic honor killing, cause it ain't honorable, good, or even sensical)

Oppressing human beings creates dissatisfaction and eventual violence: don't do it.

Ensuring that women can reach their potential and thus become happy, also makes men happy and be able to reach our potential. It's not a zero sum world, people. It never was with the advent of human control of fire.

Contrary to what Leftists claim, this nation was not built upon slave ideology. It was built upon classical liberal beliefs.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 09:38 AM

Cricket -

I did not ever see the start of an Iditarod, except on TV. It has a ceremonial start in downtown Anchorage, they run to Eagle River, then do the official start in Wasilla. The last winter we were there was the winter that MathLad was born. He was tiny when the race started, and MathMan said I should go downtown and watch the start of the race, he'd stay with Baby MathLad, but I was still fresh off a c-section and said, foolishly, "I'll do it next year." Well, "next year" that time I was in Saudi Arabia. Moral to this story? Do it now. Ignore the c-section.

Posted by: MathMom at September 2, 2008 09:42 AM

Alaska became a state 50 years ago, and thus did not have to give up women's voting rights like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakota Territories did back in the 19th centuries, Grim.

I'm aware of the history, yes. That was during a period when the Civilized East was enforcing a number of its values on the pagans elsewhere, including its requirement that Utah give up polygamy if it wanted statehood; and that the frontiersmen cease letting women vote like everyone else.

Posted by: Grim at September 2, 2008 11:10 AM

She took that flight from Texas to Alaska and risked her baby and herself because she and her husband are nutjobs who are bascially nationalists -- only, Alaska as a nation, no other state in the United States will do.

Posted by: Tally at September 2, 2008 02:42 PM

Whatever.

Posted by: Cass at September 2, 2008 02:44 PM

She took that flight from Texas to Alaska because she had started to leak, but not go into active labor, and at 8 months gestation she could have continued in that manner for a fargin' month, Tally. So she chose to try to get home to her own obstetrician so that she could have a familiar face with knowledge of the situation deliver the baby.

And the Republic of Texas is it's own nation (or at least they still think so here), Alaska is not. But if you've ever seen Alaska, you'd see why no other state would do.

Posted by: MathMom at September 2, 2008 03:14 PM

Tally will be one of the first to celebrate in the streets when Obama uses a nuke on a city.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 2, 2008 10:26 PM

Texas IS a whole other country ;-) That's the state tourism slogan, or at least used to be.

Alaskans and Texans are a lot alike in many ways. I have two uncles who lived there, and one still does. While they lived in cities, not out in the boondocks, they are all very outdoorsy (my aunts, uncles & cousins). Hiking, salmon fishing in rivers, halibut fishing on boats, and hunting (I've had a moose burger once when my uncle brought a cooler full of meats on one of their family vacations down here to Texas). Many Alaskans, like many Texans, are very independent-minded. But, unlike Texas, Alaska wasn't ever an independent nation in its history. I think the AIP accusation about Palin is just a slime job.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 3, 2008 01:38 AM

Tally, I will whack you for your stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, sexist, moronic lack of intelligence.


Having an OBGYN who is familiar with you, your medical history and any and all possible risks does a great deal to minimize the stress the mother and baby go through. Since she wasn't quite full term, and knowing that her baby was going to be a Down's baby, she needed to get to where her care would be consistent, and optimal in outcome for both her and her baby.

Water breaking doesn't mean hard labor automatically. It took 24 hours for me to go into labor after mine broke with my fifth child.

MathMom, you rock.

Posted by: Cricket at September 4, 2008 10:01 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)