Palin's being tagged for VP has Republicans falling all over themselves to say things that run contrary to previous statements. Jon Stewart, with his usual wit, puts it in perspective:
Via Pharyngula
ProfMTH, who I have a bit of an internet crush on, gives us the week in review:
For the citations referred to, see the video on youtube.
So, with the news that Sarah Palin's 17 year old unwed daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, there has been a lot of chatter about how this is a private family matter and we should all just leave poor Bristol Palin alone. I agree that we should leave Bristol alone, but her pregnancy should force some light on the conservative policies and stances that her mother and McCain support. Here are 5 reasons Bristol Palin's pregnancy matters:
#1 Conservatives claim the moral high ground.
It is often complained by liberals that conservative republicans have hijacked the issue of values. And for the most part, this is true. Conservatives tout themselves as the religious who want to preserve traditional marriage (aka deny gay rights), love "the unborn" (aka force pregnancy) and prevent sex from destroying our culture (aka push their backward view of morality on everyone else). Yet Bristol's pregnancy seems to undermine that claim. Not because her pregnancy is wrong. I'm not one to say that premarital sex is immoral. Nor would I expect most liberals to say that there is something morally suspect about coitus before marriage. To most of us liberals, it's none of our business. But religious republicans, republicans like Palin, would say that it is immoral. This is a scandal by their standards, not ours, and yet they are reacting as though their core beliefs do not hold this situation to be a sin in the eyes of their god. I smell hypocrisy.
#2 Conservatives, including Palin, oppose comprehensive sex-ed and fight for abstinence-only education.
Many conservatives oppose anything but abstinence-only education for our teens, claiming that comprehensive sex-ed will lead to more sex. Palin herself opposes comprehensive sex-education and supports abstinence-only. McCain has also claimed that he supports abstinence-only. Now, as we should all be well aware at this point, studies have shown that abstinence-only education does not work, and in many cases, these programs disseminate false information to teens about sex and pregnancy. Furthermore, studies have also shown that comprehensive sex eduation programs are effective in helping teens to dely sexual intercourse or protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy.
Now, what should we take away from this? Comprehensive sex education helps prevent teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Abstinence-only education does not. And yet conservatives like Palin and McCain want to prevent teens from getting the information that might help them to avoid the situation that Bristol Palin is now in. Don't you think a mother who is dealing with helping her daughter with a teen pregnancy and has the political clout would work to keep other girls from being put in the same unfortunate position that her daughter is in? Apparently not Sarah Palin.
#3 Many conservatives oppose hormonal birth control or are unconcerned with women's access to it.
Even if sexually active teens and women know that they can protect themselves from pregnancy through various means, that doesn't help if they don't have access to contraception. But many religious republicans flat out oppose hormonal contraception, tossing out science to call the pill and its variants "abortifacents", and hence immoral. That means that the use of contraception is also immoral to this people and if they think abortion should be illegal, then surely "abortifacents" - things that cause abortions, should also be illegal. Furthermore, many conservatives have pushed to allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse to write prescriptions for birth control or fill those prescriptions if they have moral objections, thus limiting women's access, especially in rural areas (like, say, Alaska?).
Now, it's not clear what either McCain's or Palin's positions are on this. Republicans have a way of avoiding discussing their views on birth control (since the vast majority of the American populace is okay with it). But if Palin's "right to life" credentials are good enough to garner the support of the religious wingnuts like Dobson and Robertson, then it's likely that she opposes birth control as well. That would certainly explain why a busy woman in her 40s who already had four children would manage to get pregnant, despite the risks of birth defects (like Down Syndrome) for babies of older women. But denying access to birth control just means more teen pregnancy. More girls like Bristol Palin.
#4 As Governor, Palin slashed funding that would have gone to teen mothers.
Palin used her line item veto to cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. The program gives young single moms a place to stay while they acquire some skills that will allow them to get by in the world. So, Palin doesn't want kids to be educated on how to avoid pregnancy, (probably) doesn't want them to have access to the means to prevent pregnancy, and yet won't give them money to help them once they (surprise!) get pregnant. Of course, this won't affect girls like Bristol, who, thankfully, have supportive (and rich) families to take care of them. But for lots of other young women who get pregnant, that support isn't there. And apparently Palin doesn't care.
#5 "Choice"
In the press release from the campaign on the pregnancy, the family claimed, "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby". The talking heads have been claiming that the fact that Palin practices what she preaches (i.e., that her daughter "chose life") will actually help with the conservative base. With regard to Palin's own recent pregnancy, in fact, many have been pushing the notion that she chose to have the baby despite his condition.
Well, guess what, Sarah Palin is pro-life. She believes that abortion should be illegal, even in
cases of rape or incest. She does not believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. And if she were really, truly pro-life, then neither she nor her daughter would have a choice in the matter. If you are pro-life, then there is no option other than carrying the pregnancy to term. And if there is only one option, then there is no choice. If Palin really practiced what she preached, then she didn't choose anything, and neither did her daughter. Yet the media does not bring this up. Instead, they laud her choice. Wrong. Pro-choicers can laud her choice. To pro-lifers, neither Palin nor her daughter actually had one to begin with, and true pro-lifers should be offended by the idea that either Palin or her daughter actually chose to carry their pregnancies to term. After all, "it's a baby, not a choice" right?
John McCain, that's who. He has cancelled an appearance on Larry King Live because of an exchange between CNN's Campbell Brown and a McCain campaign spokesman. The campaign claims that the exchange was over the line. The video is below. You tell me. What line did Campbell cross? Looks to me like good journalism, for once. But maybe asking simple questions and demanding answers to them is just too much for McCain to handle.
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! was arrested at the RNC yesterday and charged with obstructing a peace officer. She was attempting to obtain the release of two Democracy Now! producers that had been arrested and have been charged with felonies. While all three have now been released, the two producers sustained injuries during the arrest, and all three still face charges. Free Press has called for the charges against Goodman and other independent journalists to be dropped. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) has also condemned the actions of police. The video of Goodman's arrest is at the bottom of the post.
Democracy Now! journalists are not the only journalists to have been arrested at the RNC. An intern for the Utne Reader was arrested and then released. And an AP photographer was also arrested. In addition to the journalists, some 300 protestors were also arrested.
The actions of the Twin Cities police do not seem to have been the actions of "peace officers". Rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray and concusion grenades were all used on protestors, according to Democracy Now!. To get a sense of just how the Twin Cities police have used these weapons on protestors, go ahead and watch this:
For more of the nasty details about how local police and the FBI have been treating those who are merely exercising their constitutional rights, Glenn Greenwald has more of the story, along with pictures and an interview with Amy Goodman just after her release. Also make sure to check out The Uptake, which has continuing netroots coverage of what's going on at the RNC.
I don't even have words for how disgusting this is. First the raids on suspected protestors and now police power being abused to stifle free speech and frighten away what little free press we still have left. These are not events that happen in a democracy. These are not events that occur in a "land of the free". But what's worse is that the mainstream media is not covering it. Not a word about a prominent journalist being unlawfully arrested. Not a word about the girl in the video below who was sprayed repeatedly at close range with pepper spray. Of course, why would they say anything? A well informed populace is a threat to those in power.
Amy Goodman being arrested:
I'd like to ask you to use your imagination for just a moment. Imagine a typical house of college aged American kids. There might be band posters up on the walls of some of their rooms. There's probably the remains of a pizza and a six pack of beer in the fridge. There's an Xbox in the living room. These kids pay their rent. They are nice to their neighbors. They don't cause trouble.
Now imagine that the kids who live in this house are politically active. They are attached to certain political causes, and they are planning to peacably assemble to protest on behalf of those causes. Maybe they are sitting in the living room excitedly planning out their protest. Maybe they are on the floor with poster board and markers, making up signs.
Now imagine that the police, along with the FBI, show up to this typical house of college kids and break the door down. With weapons drawn, they force our typical American kids down on the floor and bind their hands behind their backs with handcuffs. The kids ask to see a warrant, but the police refuse. They proceed to search the house. After completing their search and finding nothing, the police set the kids free and leave.
Is this the sort of thing that should happen in the "land of the free?" No. Of course not. This is the sort of thing that happens under dictators, not under constitutions. Nothing of the sort should ever occur in the home of typical American college kids planning to exercise their freedom. If this really happened in our country, you'd be pissed, wouldn't you? If this really happened in our country, you'd expect the media to be all over it, right? You'd expect heads in the FBI and on the local police force to roll, no?
Well, it did happen. Several times. Police and FBI have been raiding the homes of those suspected to be planning protests at the Republican National Convention. You can read about it and see videos here, here, here, here, here and here. And that's just a taste.
Now, I've taken a little poetic license in my description of events. I don't know the exact circumstances of each raid. Maybe those raided weren't typical American kids. Maybe they were hippies. Maybe they were communists or anarchists. But they are Americans; Americans who are guaranteed the right to protest and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. It shouldn't matter whether they are typical kids or circus side shows, investment bankers or suffering artists. They have rights, and this seems to be a gross violation of those rights and a gross violation of the principles on which this country is founded.
Of course, I don't know for certain that these people weren't all planning on bombing the RNC and causing chaos. They say they weren't and the police aren't talking. You know who else isn't talking? The mainstream media. I haven't seen a peep about these raids on the 24 hour cable news channels. Nothing in the Washington Post. Nothing in the Chicago Tribune. Not even anything in the "liberal" New York Times. With the exception of a few independent media sources and bloggers, no one is pissed. No mainstream media is anywhere near the story. No heads are rolling.
The police in Minneapolis and the FBI acted like they operate in a police state, and where is the outrage?
