Did I hallucinate the 70s?

[blamebrampton]

Warning: Humourless grumping follows.

Goodbye, feminism, we hardly knew you.

It's my own fault for reading about American politics while I'm still sick, but I am now sick and cranky and too weak to throw things in the directions they should be thrown.

A woman's right to own her own body and make choices about it is for all women. Not all women except the daughters of conservative politicians. All of them.

If you, as I do, disagree with Sarah Palin's position on abortion, then you can write to her, vote against anti-abortion politicians in your area, or donate money to women's health clinics. Don't weigh in on her daughter. It's obnoxious, whether it comes from the right or from the left. 

Women have enough difficulties asserting ownership over their own bodies as it is.

It's not as though there aren't genuine political issues that are worth being involved with and angry about in America at the moment. The delightful kestrelsparhawk  has been chronicling police reaction to protests against the Republican National Convention. Observers, journalists and lawyers sent into represent others have been detained, handcuffed and arrested in a manner that makes mock of the Land of the Free. Flick over and read, the entries aren't locked.

This is not the Republican Party of Lincoln, this is not the America of its Constitution. To be fair, I doubt it is the Republican Party of John McCain. But I sadly suspect that he is not the party. I would be far more cheerful about the state of international affairs if he was. While he may have issues with keeping his pants up, he seems underneath to be a committed political figure. I may prefer Obama, but all I ask from political leaders is diligence and good legislation. They can do what they like with their pants, and their daughters can, too.

Comments

[acromantular.livejournal.com]

Well, they do have a decent flag, but I think the parrots died off in the cold. Most unfortunate.

[drgaellon]

he seems underneath to be a committed political figure.

No, no he's not. He has slid FAR to the right since announcing his candidacy, turned his back on propositions he was committed to for YEARS because they are against the views of his far-right base, has out-and-out lied about his voting record, and, to cap it off, has selected a monumentally incapable and inappropriate running mate to pander to both that far-right base and women in general. I hope it bites him in the f'ing ass.

[drgaellon]

this is what happens when you let a bunch of puritans start a nation.

People forget that the Puritans did not come here to found a nation of "religious freedom." They came here to escape religious persecution, which is not the same thing. They had every intention of creating a place which was just as intolerant as Mother England - just within their own values. It was only the influence of non-religious Deists like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin that enshrined religious freedom in our laws... but it never REALLY took hold in the public consciousness, and still hasn't to this day.

[snottygrrl.livejournal.com]

honestly, i think people forget there were puritans involved at all, let alone understand that their (the puritans) views hold sway today in the states. if it wasn't so annoyingly narrow i would be fascinating.

[brinian.livejournal.com]

Although to be 'fair', when she cut the funding by 20% in her state budget for the organization in Anchorage that helps unwed mothers, she also cut half the funding for the food bank. (see <http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/03/palin_slashed_teen_mom_funding/index.html>) So really, she's completely consistent with her message: "have the baby, marry the father, live in poverty, and don't expect any help from the government even when you can't feed the kid". I guess the new family are supposed to live with the (grand)parents? But what about kids whose (grand)parents are living in poverty themselves? Where do they get help?

I'm thinking of registering as a Socialist before the next election rolls around... Too bad they don't actually have candidates on the ballots in most elections.

[brinian.livejournal.com]

So wish I had a partner who wanted kids. I have wanted a family forever and won't have one because my other half doesn't want kids. I think I'd be an amazing mom. If we were straight I could just pop them out whether or not we actually had agreement on the subject...birth control fails all the time. Then I could be a single mother (after the divorce!) and get help from the government. But as it is...nope...great home, great parenting, no kids. Meh!

[brinian.livejournal.com]

It isn't the puritans so much as the born-again, evangelicals. The puritans are rolling in their graves at what the evangelicals believe these days :-)

[prilbrum.livejournal.com]

HI there

I'm sorry this isn't timely--I'm always a little behind with lj. I haven't read through all the comments, so forgive me if what I say has already been covered.

I'm all for privacy--for all us, and certainly the privacy of a young girl. But the reason this has become such a controversy is the hypocracy of a party that wants to police what the rest of us do in the bedroom. It's the hyprocracy of the fundamentalists who LOVE that, she, as right-wing as they are, has been nominated--and suddenly don't care if things in her life are things they disapprove of in others.

These are the same people who are extremely judgemental when it's other people. Many of the right wing leaders now lauding Sarah Palin have for years preached that a woman's place is in the home,and they are also very punishing to other pregnant teenagers. They made fun of Hillary clinton for years and scrutinized the parenting of any woman democrat politician, or liberal spoksperson.

But when it's their candidate, they don't care. But if it were Obama or Hillary in this position??? These people would be trying to eat them alive.

They support legislation (as does Palin) that abstinence only birth control be taught in school. They don't want sex education. They want to limit all of our daughters right to birth control access. and of course they want to ban abortion. They want to legislate their Christian beliefs, which of course includes constantly oppressing the rights of gay people. Ironically, Sarah Palin struck down funding for a program in Alaska to help pregnant teenage girls.

(As an aside not altogether having to do with this issue, the fundamentalists support her because she wants creationism taught in schools and she denies humans cause global warming)

But mostly--this party which supposedly doesn't want government in our lives--wants government totally in our lives when it has to do with sex. They also want government to be able to track our phone calls and find out which books we check out from the library. So if you disagree with them, they want government to be watching you, all of the time.

As to McCain-- perhaps at one time he earned the title of maverick, but he doesn't live up to the title anymore-- in recent years he has voted 90% with Bush. He has reversed many of his previously held "maverick positions".

And scarily, his talk was hugely aggressive, rather than diplomatic a few weeks ago in the Russia/Georgia situation. And though I so agree Russia over reacted terribly--our media, though not denying the start of it--went on to totally ignore the fact that Georgia attacked first. McCain was going crazy with aggressive rhetoric. We don't need more of the same we've dished up to the world for the last 8 years.

Anyway, back to point--I've always been a huge advocate of privacy. But again, the irony is that the conservatives in the last couple of decades have never respected the privacy of their opponents. They are always making bedroom issues political. I know there have been many terrible and inappropriate speculations regarding Palin's daughter. But pointing out that hypocracy is legit, in my opinion. The rest of us are so tired of being harangued as sinners by the godly right.

Sorry this is a little disorganized. It's a late, right before bed, comment.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

But see, you've just presented an extremely cogent and sensible set of arguments for why Palin is a bad candidate with bad policies without once singing a chorus of "Oh your daughter is a slut and we thought you were lying about the baby, too ..." (which let's face it, a lot of the right are singing along with parts of the left.)

All I'm asking for is that the paid media do the same.

I want to know what's happened to McCain, I am hoping for an Obama victory, but there was a time when both men stood for the public good.

[arobynsung]

Here here!

I write only that because I've been talking in much verbosity on the utter wrongness, there is no other word strong enough, that is the current state of humanity if you can consider imposing a law on people to restrict their write to choice.

Oh look, I wrote more.
Oops.