Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Just To Recap: Michael Gerson, Clueless Douche

Michael Gerson once again proves he's a clueless douche. Here's his take on the media's treatment of Governor Sarah Palin's disclosure that her seventeen-year-old daughter is pregnant:

What does all this say about Palin herself? That she is a hypocrite? Absurd. She seems to have acted in a manner entirely consistent with her religious beliefs. (If she had urged her daughter to get an abortion, that would be hypocrisy.) That Palin is somehow unqualified for office because she couldn't "control" her own family? This is a foolish, cartoon version of Victorianism.

As for Gerson's first question, it seems to me it tells a lot, but not in the way he's stretching this. Hypocrite? No. Blah blah blah religious beliefs.

His next question is whether Bristol's* pregnancy should disqualify the Governor because, to use Gerson's phrase, "she couldn't 'control' her own family." Er, no. Here's the deal.

Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only sex education. She's right in line with the other conservatives on this. No mention of sex acts or the facts of how babies happen or of contraceptives should ever be taught to unwitting children. Because that's the way to prevent unwanted pregnancies God's way.

So let's say the governor really believes this tripe. Let's say she thinks abstinence-only sex education will do, and that will solve our teen-pregnancy "problem." How does that work out?

Well, it seems that a white Alaskan woman between the ages of fifteen and nineteen are slightly less likely than the national average to get pregnant (Check here and here). Mix in that her parents are wealthy and that they're very religious, and you'd like to think that this kid won't be baking buns before sunrise, right? Wrong.

So if a young woman in this situation falls into these circumstances, what chance to poor, uneducated, undereducated, less-well-supported young women have? Honestly?

Almost none. And that's why the conservative position on women's issues are completely fucking wrong. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but it's a big one.

*Okay, WTF? What goddamned anencephalic fuckwit names any child "Bristol?" This alone should raise red flags like a mofo.

UPDATE 9/4/08: I added the links. Probably not in a helpful way, but I added them.

5 comments:

Bridgett said...

Bristol. As in the speedway. I think your NASCAR quip was right on the money.

Bridgett said...

Oh, oops. This is bridgett from My Beautiful Wickedness. Sorry for that blurt w/o proper ID.

Jason said...

That's cool. Welcome, Bridgett. Now I know more about NASCAR. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.

dchmielewski said...

The Palin's have quite the track record with naming their children:

Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig

Track is on his way to Iraq (not for site seeing). Quite unfortunate I would say. Willow is probably not a bad name, especially for the North Country crowd and I have heard worse than Piper (its kinda cute, kinda?) but the other 3 are pretty heinous names (especially Track and Trig)

But I would agree with Barack when he says that Bristol being pregnant is "not relevant". Ironic, but hardly relevant. Gov. Palin's political positions are relevant and there is plenty of gold to mine there for those that are interested.

Babies are still brought by the stork, right? Or do you just order them on Amazon these days? I am sure that they qualify for Super Saver shipping, if you don't mind the stork taking 5 to 9 days. ;-)

Nik said...

Dude, if I can order kids from Amazon instead of birthing something the size of a watermelon, freakin' SIGN ME UP!

:)

And I think Piper was named after Rowdy Roddy Piper. Momma don't like tattletales...