Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Here's why it isn't strictly private

Posted on 2008.09.02 at 12:08
Current Music: Cat Fight - Mamie Van Doren

I admire the idea that Palin’s family should be completely off-limits to public discussion, but...


Release the Kraken!
delerium69 at 2008-09-02 16:20 (UTC) (Link)
I feel the same way. On the one hand, it's nobody's business outside of the family. But the fact that she's so vocal about being against sex ed and then ends up with a pregnant teenage daughter is impossible to overlook. I have the urge to say "So how well is that concept working out for you?" Granted, providing comprehensive sexual education is not a 100% guarantee that teens won't get pregnant (or have sex before they're ready), but at least they're better informed when it's time to make decisions about sex.
suzermagoozer at 2008-09-02 17:35 (UTC) (Link)
plus...sarah palin announced her pregnancy to the media.

frankly, i think she just found out herself.
theservant at 2008-09-02 22:18 (UTC) (Link)
The McCain people leaked it, I read somewhere, I think in the new Newsweek. Either way.
niyabinghi at 2008-09-02 16:53 (UTC) (Link)
theservant at 2008-09-02 22:20 (UTC) (Link)
As a relatively new dad to an 8-year old girl, I really am feeling this personally.
suzermagoozer at 2008-09-02 17:33 (UTC) (Link)
no shit.

boy, this is all McCain's fault.
i don't think anyone took him seriously a month ago when he talked to her. She was never fully vetted, her family was caught completely off guard.

i feel REEEEEEEEALLY bad for this girl. How the hell would any of us like being outted on CNN?

and come ON...all this spin from repubs who keep insisting this is a "genius choice" is making me nauseated.

Obama now leads 8% in national polls.
theservant at 2008-09-02 22:19 (UTC) (Link)
There is great video somewhere of Buchanan and Scarborough on Morning Joe the day that it was announced, and Palin's name comes up. They both spend several minutes running her down and saying what a stupid idea that would be, and why would McCain ever do that, and who is floating such a dumb-ass rumor anyway?
(Anonymous) at 2008-09-03 20:48 (UTC) (Link)
SUCH a good point- it would be off limits if palin believed that my health care and my body were off limits to her. instead, she believes that you can't trust women to make good choices given all the info, and you should thus give women less than the whole story, to make sure they don't make one of those "bad" choices. like someone else said, that obviously doesn't even work in her own family- i think it just illustrates how we can't use it as an effective policy for our whole country. keep your opinions out of my uterus, sarah palin, and then i'll give your kid some privacy.
jonnymoon at 2008-09-05 13:02 (UTC) (Link)
...but you're gonna take the cheap shot anyway?

You know, it cracks me up...Democrats rose up in force to protect Bill Clinton's blow-job but have a problem with a pregnant girl?

Hypocracy, anyone?
theservant at 2008-09-05 13:50 (UTC) (Link)
I don't even see your point. Clinton wasn't proposing anti-blowjob legislation at the time.
jonnymoon at 2008-09-09 17:27 (UTC) (Link)
hy·poc·ri·sy –noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Does that clear it up?

The point is that you say you're not going to take a cheap shot, then you do...but Democrats everywhere were willing to overlook infidelity on Slick Willy's part. I wonder if your new bride would be as forgiving of you?

theservant at 2008-09-09 22:24 (UTC) (Link)
I don't think that Clinton ran on having a moral character. Also, my bride is not married to Bill Clinton, baruch HaShem.
(Anonymous) at 2008-09-06 22:00 (UTC) (Link)
imagine how popular anti blow job legislation would be... the issue is clearly not the pregnancy, it's the privacy and hypocrisy. if getting bjs helped clinton do a better job, i think we should federally fund them. if teen pregnancy helped somehow, maybe we should fund that too. but it doesn't. so maybe we should fund the education and health care and independent decision making capacity in women that does make life better for us all.
jonnymoon at 2008-09-09 17:34 (UTC) (Link)
I agree, it's hypocracy, alright.

For the record, I'm against any bill which denies people knowledge...as with any canidate, you will pick which things you support and which you do not. While I'm not a bible thumper like Palin is, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Pardon the pun.) I also like the idea that she's a gun-toting religious fanatic...with all the Muslim fanatics in the world, we could use a few more gun-toting Christian fanatics to do battle. (Americans are such apathetic sheep, generally.)

But I'm completely unwilling to pay for public healthcare. Period. I do not want to pay for your cold medicine, even if you were a tax-paying upstanding American citizen (read: Republican). Besides, if you were an upstanding, tax-payingAmerican citizen, you'd have a JOB and pay for your own healthcare. (Then again, Big Business should be responsible for lowering the price to those who cannot afford...but I digress.)

As far as funding education, hey, what ever happened to parents having the birds & the bees discussion with their kids? How's that for education?
(Anonymous) at 2008-09-12 20:54 (UTC) (Link)
this isn't my blog, so i'm attempting politeness. however, it's tough for you to say that you support education, but that you are completely unwilling to pay for health care. perhaps this is part of what has gone horribly wrong with both our health and education systems in this country- very few people seem to understand that education is the BACKBONE of health care. there is no chance of providing care if we cannot provide good science in understandable ways to people. all people, not just those whose parents decide that it's important to pass along. as a health care provider, please understand that my goal is to educate- and it COSTS MONEY!!! lots of it. and that's ok. paying money in for stuff you don't directly get sucks, i agree. but we all benefit from others receiving health care. if you think you don't, please ride the train more often next to lots of people who can't afford to see a doctor. shake their hands. breathe their air. then we can talk about what benefits you and what you think is worth paying for.
additionally, i'm christian. i read that book. the second half, that all the christians get uptight about, where it says you don't have to sacrifice goats and stuff? it also says you aren't supposed to be a gun-toting fanatic, and that doing battle is generally frowned upon. if you'd like to discuss christianity or anything else for that matter, read the book to the end, and don't just pick out the parts that sound fun.
(sorry jonathan! off soapbox now.)
jonnymoon at 2008-09-12 22:01 (UTC) (Link)
(Grabs soapbox)

Education has nothing to do with healthcare, and your premise comes from the wrong direction. You say that we can't provide decent healthcare if we can't provide good education. I say, howabout we concentrate on education and let the healthcare worry about itself. You seem to be coming from the stance that if you haven't got good healthcare, then how can you educate people? ...which makes no sense at all. You can educate people without having to pay for their doctor's visits. I'm completely behind the money which should go to education (as long as you're not throwing it down a dry well).

However, I say again: I'm not interested in paying for someone else's cold medicine. I absolutely see your point when you say that someone with a cold is miserable, but they are not my problem. Especially not to the tune of billions of dollars and ESPECIALLY not for undocumented illegal aliens. It's bad enough that they attend our schools and force our country to be bi-lingual. When I was a kid, there was no "Press 1 for English, 2 for Other"...you hung up until you learned English! Did you know they write books overseas which tell you how to move to America when you get old, solely to collect on Social Security? Fortunately, they don't have to learn English to collect! (Note the sarcasm.)

And BTW, I did read the whole book, front to back, and quite frankly, I don't see how you can say that it frowns on war, when most of the heros of the bible were war heros. What was that you said about picking out the parts that "sound fun"? If you have a blog, I'd be pleased to post debates on Christianity there.

(Dismounts soapbox. Offers soapbox back.)
ext_122771 at 2008-09-16 16:11 (UTC) (Link)
(remounts soapbox. offers extensive apologies to jonathan)
if you can't see the link between health care and education, i can't give that to you. why is education a right of all people- something you are willing to fund- but health care is a privilege only suited to those who deserve it? a person's education does not affect you- if they rot in a gutter because they don't have a good job, i can see how soulless bastards can write that off. but from a purely selfish point of view, a person's health care DOES affect you. don't pay for cold medicine, fine. but hope that you can cure the cold that you get when you contract it from someone without health care. ditto for tb. hiv. hepatitis. flesh eating bacteria. whatever. i would never say that you have to care about someone being miserable because they are sick (perhaps your loving christian nature would lead you to care, but it's not my place to insist that you care). my point is that you should care about the health of the public exclusively because one sick person affects us all. and the bible ABSOLUTELY frowns on war in the second part- the war heroes congregate in that wrath of god fire and brimstone part. i'm not superchristian preach to people girl- i think people should think for themselves and form their own beliefs- but for people who claim to love the baby jesus and also love guns... i don't get the contradiction.
theservant at 2008-09-16 16:17 (UTC) (Link)
I might stand up for the first part of the book a bit, but I basically agree with you.
On the more objective self-interested side, there are also the economic effects of not having health care; women who don't get vaccinated for rubella are more likely to have a blind child; that child is less likely to be a productive member of the workforce (although many blind people are); someone who breaks their arm or leg and can't afford to get it properly seen to may also be a less- or non- productive worker. Then those people wind up on welfare, which costs more money. The current system makes it so that funding the health plans of workers drive up production costs so that American good are less competitive, further hurting our economy.

Also, I would love to see a source on the books from other countries that tell old people to move to the US for the free health care and social security.
jonnymoon at 2008-09-17 00:16 (UTC) (Link)
Saying that you can't answer my question "What does healthcare have to do with education?" does not help you make your point.

It only emphasizes that there is no apparent link.

Secondly, I don't have a "loving Christian nature", in fact, I don't have a "loving nature" of any sort...that I'm aware of.

What I do have is a clear viewpoint...I do not see why I should have to pay for other people's health care. I do have some sympathy for a person who has contracted most of those diseases but I don't have any sympathy for someone who contracted them out of poor planning, or bad personal habits, or even outright promiscuity and I especially don't have any sympathy at all for people who contract them through "lifestyle choices". (There's your "Public Health Care" system, now that you can be as "free" as you want without having to worry about paying for the consequences of your actions. Then the whole thing goes broke trying to pay for that. Or worse, they dig more into my pockets. Screw that.)

I really don't see myself paying for other people's bad choices. They should pay for those themselves. Or, if you want, you can pay for it. I encourage you to. If you don't, why aren't you? If you do, then great...we'll pin a medal on your chest. But I don't see me wasting my money by throwing it down a dry well. (For instance, on someone who can't be cured. Better to let them die, and spend the money on other things for us, the living.)

Because the moment you start diverting money to the poor...people will only cry out for more. That's why socialism fails. (Quite frankly, it's why Democracies fail, too. Look up Alexander Fraser Tytler. He said that eventually the people vote themselves too much from the treasury, which weakens the nation and causes it to fail. For example: Voting Public Healthcare from the Treasury.)

If anyone should have to pay for healthcare, why don't you ask big business to do it, instead of reaching in my pocket? I'll tell you why, because big business will scrape these deadbeats off even faster than I do.

theservant at 2008-09-17 00:46 (UTC) (Link)
My point is that you ARE paying for them, and you will continue to unless you move to a Unabomber shack, or else really want to do some kind of Hobbesian-Malthusian meltdown where we have a lot of people just die off until things kind of settle down more to the state of nature. The question might be, what is the most efficient way to run things?
jonnymoon at 2008-09-17 03:52 (UTC) (Link)
Your point is that we are already paying for them, to which I would reply, enough, already.

Vaccinations are good. But me paying for other people's mistakes is bad.

The question, what is the most efficient way to run things, is a question for the ages, certainly. I know I don't have the answer for it, and I doubt that any one person can provide it. There will always be a need...there always has been.

Those in need and who can't bail themselves out of trouble will simpy have to rely upon the goodwill of those who are inclined to provide charity. For those who ARE capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (or whatever other cliche' you want to use) those people should. Don't tell me it can't be done, people have been doing that for generations.

For those who count on charity, let's keep this in mind...beggars can't be choosy.

Oh, and BTW, I really doubt that a person who works in the healthcare field is capable of having an unbiased opinion about this.

But really, REALLY, who can make the bald statement that you can't have education without healthcare? That's completely non-sequitur. That's like saying you can't have refrigerators without umbrellas!

ext_122771 at 2008-09-17 20:02 (UTC) (Link)
my last post on the topic:
i never said that you can't have education without health care. i said they are related, and that a large part of health care is education. yes. i am completely biased. but not because i'm some bleeding heart sympathy monger. it's because i have seen first hand the ease with which people get ill- the large majority of which is not caused by their choices (promiscuity included...) and the difficulty they have getting well and being productive members of society. perhaps we should throw the sick out into the woods and let them die- personally, i would like to think we have come further than that in terms of civilization. some of us, apparently, have not. i also want to be sure to say that i have nothing against the first part of the bible (or the whole of the torah if you prefer ;))- i do think though that people who run around calling themselves christian should make some effort to cultivate in themselves those ideals that jesus espoused (whether you believe in the guy or not, some of those ideals are pretty good). people who say they are christian, but don't have a loving nature missed the whole point. i would guess that people who are jewish or hindu or muslim or anything else who say they have no loving nature probably missed those points also. sounds like perhaps the unibomber shack is the way to go for you, dude, since you really want so little to do with other people. if you choose to be exclusively self-sufficient, ok. don't assume that everyone can be that way, or would even want to. there is something rewarding about helping people make the best of their lives (that's in both parts of the book). i won't put down here what i give or don't give to others- one isn't supposed to do that, or even let your left hand know what your right hand does. suffice to say that i take great pleasure in knowing that i can use my knowledge and success in this world to the benefit of people who truly need a hand and really gain from the small amount of giving i can provide.
completely finished with soapbox...
Previous Entry  Next Entry