"Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity."
Sam Harris, "When Atheists Attack: A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin--and defends elitism." Newsweek, Sept. 29, 2008 p32-35 (see p34).
Now, excuse me, but what the fuck? Is there a single Palin supporter who can explain this bullshit to me? Seriously, I specifically remember when Jamie Lynn Spear's pregnancy was announced. I specifically remember reading and seeing on television (possibly, hell, probably on channels which often claim to be news shows, but really don't tell you anything) about how shitty Mrs. Spears must be to have let her underage daughter get pregnant. And now, little Bristol is knocked up and Palin gets a pass? Why? Because she's anti-choice? Sorry, but that ain't it. C'mon, think about it, did anyone even ask the Spears about their views on abortion? No the fuck they didn't. (Or if they did, it never made it to major media, kinda like the rally of Alaskan Women Against Palin, and for sure no one told my ass about it.)
But wait, the hypocrisy gets even worse if you consider the rest of Mr. Harris' thought:
"And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who 'intends' to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of 'the dysfunction in the black community'?"
Who indeed. Please. Those mother-fuckers would have been chomping at the bit to see who could find the most clever barb. The vitriol against Obama would be worse than it already is. And sorry, but I don't see McCain asking the media to lay off of Obama's family and focus on the issues. Could you? Knowing he's barely said the word 'issue' in his campaign, let alone actually discussed them? (Then again, maybe he would...after all, he was once the biggest supporter of a deregulated market and now he's supposedly all in favor of a bail-out accompanied by tighter regulation).
Oh --and speaking of the bail-out...am I the only one who sees this as nothing more than a situation that was allowed to happen so that Bush and his boys could just put even more taxpayer money into the hands of the corporate powers-that-be?
So -- back to the double standard. Anyone got an explanation for me? Cause I'd really really like to hear it. Honest. I really want to know. Look, I consider myself to be a pretty smart chick. And its not like I'm a republican hater -- I respect everyone's right to believe what they want (and I can even, theoretically agree with some 'conservative fiscal policies' - at least what that used to mean), I just can't understand the Palin thing. She gets a pass for the very things that conservatives have railed against in the past? Why? Because she's on the right side of the fence (no pun intended)? I mean, I really thought my Republican friends were relatively smart people (and by the post-Palin definition -- well educated and from the East Coast -- elitist) yet they all seem to be falling hook-line-and-sinker for this b.s. being handed to them. Sorry, but you guys deserve better than your party is giving you. Seriously, you are getting majorly screwed. Is it just me? But the people leading the 'republican' party just don't seem very 'republican' to me anymore, at least not what republican used to mean anyway.
Which brings me to this other interesting article I just read....but I'll leave that for another time. Besides I've got Dancing with the Stars tivo'd (hell-lo, Lacey from SYTYCD is on!) and I do (unfortunately) have to go to work tomorrow...