Well, I for one sure am relieved that the Palins got rid of that media-mongering, Playgirl-posing baby daddy Levi Johnston. It’s just not right to have such a bright spotlight shining on someone’s family. Think of the children, for pity’s sake!
(thinking)
Yeah. Okay.
So it’s all well and good for Sarah to rail against the media for perpetuating malicious gossip about her family one minute, then use her family to perpetuate her own agenda (whatever that is) the next?
So it’s not alright for lover-boy Levi to bare (not quite) all on the pages of Playgirl, but it’s totally fine to sell your boo-hoo story of being a single teenage mom/ex-VP candidate and mother-of-a-kid-with-Down-syndrome to a fine pillar of journalistic integrity like In Touch Weekly? Or just a little “it’s not easy being me” piece to People?
Of course it is. You’re consecrated tea-party royalty. Standards of moral integrity just don’t apply to you people. You’re special.
But you just have to love the hypocrisy irony of Sarah and Bristol building a custody case against Levi based on claims that he would “capitalize on his name by selling stories to the media” — and then, well, capitalizing on their names by selling stories to the media.
Oh there is just so much more I could say here, but why? No one likes beating a dead moose.
Related posts:
- Do They Have Keggers in Wasilla? (You Betcha?) Maybe I was a little hard on the good former...
- Sarah Palin’s Grandkid Enjoys the Perks of Socialized Medicine It’s not a secret that Sarah Palin is no fan...
- Greta Van Susteren Will Be The Only One Discussing Bristol Palin Fox News commentator and Sarah Palin confidante Greta Van Susteren...
- Demi Moore Insists It’s Her Real Body on W’s Cover Demi Moore is at the center of a controversy surrounding...
- SELF Editors Explain Away Retouched Kelly Clarkson Cover If you know and love American Idol winner Kelly Clarkson,...
The best part of Levi Johnston obviously ran down the mailman’s leg, so I put no credence whatsoever in any of his mutterings. I’m willing to cut the Palins a great deal of slack. The woman was sent coat hangers and a note reading “Better Luck Next Time!” after Trig’s birth. Only an entire tribe of loathsome, shambling assholes would do that to a person, and the person I’m referring to is Trig, not Sarah. The Palins have been absolutely demonized by the left, and I have no problem with them giving interviews to tell their side of the story. They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t, so they might as well speak up.
Frankly I don’t care how the heck any of them make their money, The bottom line is that Levi is a deadbeat. I don’t care if he’s flipping burgers or shagging playboy bunnies for a living he should be contributing to the welfare of his son. Does Bristol need his money? Probably not. Does every child deserve the support of both their parents? Absolutely.
It IS fun to beat a dead baby seal, though.
I must’ve missed the post where they introduced you Miss Snarker. Welcome, welcome.
ontopic: As far as I know, Mrs. Palin is about as employed as Mr. Johnston. Oh, wait, she works for Fox News now. Didn’t Mr. Johnston play hockey? I’m sure he could get a job on ESPN if he tried.
She must have had a lot of faith in Bristol’s will power to not do hanky panky with her boyfriend in her bed every night. Or did Sarah just not know what was happening under her own roof? Kinda hard to miss Levi slurping down breakfast every day.
What hypocrisy?
Considering that almost every word out of Johnson’s mouth is negative stuff about the Palins, I think they have a good point. I haven’t heard them say much (if anything) on the record about him, other than in court filings. If the father of my child was saying stuff like that, I wouldn’t want my kid in his custody either. At least Bristol is taking care of the kid, and generally showing better (and more) judgement than he is.
Also, most media coverage is just opinionated bashing of Palin, with little regard to her actual views and positions. Yes, in interviews she is going to try to present herself in the best light possible, but who isn’t? There is also a difference between saying “don’t attack my kids” and the kid saying “okay, I’ll do an interview”.
The magazine is the one choosing how to spin the story. While both are certainly advocating having and raising children (in spite of less than perfect circumstances), I don’t think Sarah has ever cried boo-hoo over having a baby with Downs syndrome. She has acknowledged that it is tough, but I have never heard of her saying a negative thing about her baby. This is a country where 90 percent of babies with Downs syndrome are aborted. Anyone who wants to advocate for children and people with the condition should be applauded, not mocked.
It is a fine line, but I think it is appropriate to want mommy and daddy to be civil to each other, particularly in public. I’ve seen enough parents try to poison the kids towards each other, I hate to think what they would do with easy access to the media. If he’ll tell the world that mommy and grandma and grandpa are horrible, I guarantee that he’ll tell the kid the same thing. Unless they’re actually abusive or dangerous, Johnson needs to keep his mouth shut.
I don’t think I get the same impression from this as you do. I think both women firmly believe in the pro-life movement and want to use their own celebrity status to help. Sure, not EVERYTHING they do is noble and selfless, but I think they were trying to draw attention to a cause rather than themselves in this particular instance.
I don’t see the hypocrisy.
People should get to capitalize on their own names and feel free to sell their stories to the media. The media has a responsibility to get it right, good or bad, and not bake in a bunch of extra bullshit. Sure, they can have their own spin, but going Andrew Sullivan level of conspiracy theory is pretty piss poor.
Why defend Levi? He is a dipshit deadbeat. He isn’t capitalizing on his name, but theirs. He perpetuates a line of bull and doesn’t reveal any inside dirt. His child is five months old and as recently as a last month hadn’t seen it. Also you can’t be implying that Levi made it into Playgirl on his own “talent”?
Now that Sarah is on Fox, she can’t be “consecrated tea-party royalty.” Who is you people? Tea Partiers or the Palins? I am confused. I think the Tea Partiers have more of a claim to moral integrity than the other two parties. As they get organized, we will see how long that lasts.
I love Deceiver and when you catch the Palins in a good one, then ring them up. However, this one looks like you just have an ax to grind and no sense of context.
Also it looks like Bristol has decided to make herself fair game. It seemed like she went into hiding about a year ago after the talk show interview (Tyra?), so maybe there will be something soon.
So it’s all well and good for Sarah to rail against the media for perpetuating malicious gossip about her family one minute, then use her family to perpetuate her own agenda (whatever that is) the next?
Well, yeah, it looks all well and good to me. I’m with Carl, not seeing the hypocrisy here. There’s nothing contradictory about objecting to someone spreading malicious gossip about your family, and then giving interviews about your family that don’t include malicious gossip about anybody.
Sorry, Miss Snarker, I think you whiffed this one.
Lost me on this one dude. Sounds like crap I can read visiting
CNN, MSNBS or any left wing blog.
Somebody must not have gotten any of late.
Uh, can we have Simon back, please? At least he knew what hypocrisy was.
I cannot compare what they are doing now to what Levi did. Bristol has pretty much stayed out of the spotlight for a very long time, whereas her douche of an ex has done everything to slam her and her family. She is working two jobs and going to school whereas he got a job showning his “johnson”. Not much to compare this too.
And compared to the Obama’s – this article is nothing. Now, had they both had abortions, then there is the hypocracy.
I have to agree… on the surface,I don’t see anything wrong with this. Of course, I haven’t read the article… if, during the course of the interview they begin slagging Johnston (although, who could blame them,dude’s the King of the Douchbags) then maybe there’d be some hypocrisy. But trying to tell their side of the story or using their celebrity (and I use that term loosely) to further what they view as a good cause, then I don’t see any harm in it. Isn’t that what other celebrities do? Like posing nude for PETA, or climbing a mountain to make a point about water? It’s just that this particular cause is near and dear to conservatives’ hearts, I think, is what makes people look at this suspect. If they were talking about something other than pro-life issues, I think people would give them a pass.
Oh, who am I kidding? Sarah Palin could single-handedly find a cure for cancer, or go back in time and kill Hitler, and the left and media would STILL find a way to tear her and her family to pieces.
I think the only hypocrisy I can find is the premise of the custody case: that he would “capitalize on his name by selling stories to the media”. Clearly, they are also selling stories to the media, partially on the notoriety brought to Bristol by the birth of her child – but more on the notoriety of Sarah as former VP-candidate, because, seriously, who would care about Bristol’s story if not for her mother? Honestly, though, I think they can find a better foundation for their case than that.
I can see where Miss Snarker is coming from. There is an element of hypocrisy here, not in the magazine article itself, but in castigating Levi “Baby Daddy” Johnston for trying to get media attention when they do the same. Honestly, though, not all media attention is created equal, and there’s a lot worse to say about Levi Johnston (*coffPlaygirlmanwhorecoff*).
TL;DR – The magazine article is fine, as they are voicing their viewpoints to an interested public. On the surface, slamming Levi for his own media interests is not cool, but let’s face it. Article about political issue and lifestyle =/= nudie mag.
Not really seeing it. It’s actually a good move of fighting back a bit against the HUGE tide of anti Palin media that we put up with almost daily.
Now maybe if they had HAD an abortion and then said we decided to be Pro-Life….
Who said they were paid for that article?? Most of those rags do phone interviews and pull the pictures from the web or the persons website.
“Who said they were paid for that article?? Most of those rags do phone interviews and pull the pictures from the web or the persons website.”
There is an in home picture of the pair of kids and moms on Jezebel http://jezebel.com/5447191/sarah–bristol-palin-push-pro+life-message-in-new-in-touch
and another picture of the teen washing her baby in the kitchen sink on the In Touch site http://www.intouchweekly.com/2010/01/in_touch_exclusive_interview_p.php.
I think we can safely assume that they were paid and that in-home interviews were performed. After all, when this article was being constructed, both of the ladies were unemployed.
Snarker, I can’t help but notice after your first few postings that your tone of writing is, er, different than the other contributors on Deceiver.
To me, this site has always felt like part of the news blogosphere, with a generally straight tone laced with exasperation. On the other had, your items come across – quite appropriately for your name – as the generic snarking that saturates the gossip/Gawker cesspools of the internet.
Just sayin’.
Levi’s claim to fame is his willingness to bash the Palin family, them fighting him for custody is similar to a black family fighting for custody against someone who makes racist comments for a living, I think claiming they object to him going after media attention is an oversimplification, they object to HOW he is getting the attention, which is by bad mouthing the mother of his child and her family, meanwhile I can’t personally recall any comment they have made regarding him other than the fact that he is telling hateful lies about them. Simply put a mother telling people to stop making a living off of saying horrible things about her family is VASTLY different than interviewing for an article about making the best of bad circumstances, this isn’t an apples-oranges comparison, this is an apples-baseball comparison. If you have noticed most people don’t seem to see the hypocrisy here, you might want to re-evaluate your point of view here. Politicians are almost all hypocrites(BOTH parties, I am talking to you Orrin Hatch) so when you have to reach this much for a story it reeks of bias.
Play nice with the new girl, guys.
Sorry, not seeing any hypocrisy here. But I’m sure the left-wing Palin haters who troll the netz for more opportunities to trash her and her family really appreciate this sop to them.
Without the Palins, he’s nobody. He’s trying to get all the mileage he can because of his association with them.
They, on the other hand, without him, are still somebody.
“I think we can safely assume that they were paid and that in-home interviews were performed. After all, when this article was being constructed, both of the ladies were unemployed.”
Assumption has definitely proved to make an ass out of most people, especially those with PDS.
People paid $300,000 for “exclusive” baby pictures.
http://www.hollyscoop.com/sarah-palin/bristol-palin-to-sell-baby-photos_18871.aspx
It’s rumored that this story was also in the 6 figures for this “exclusive” story.
I’m still afraid Palin is going to knock down my door in the middle of the night and confiscate my birth control. I can’t help it…I cannot shake this irrational concept.
I can see the hypocritical slant this has – if you’re going to ask people to respect your privacy regarding your children, then turn around and put them in front of a camera (even to tell your side of the story) then you’re a hypocrite. They could have done the article without bringing the kids into the camera frame. During her entire campaign, Palin put her kids in front of the camera then demanded privacy for her kids. Sorry, Sarah, you can’t have it both ways. If you use your kids to further your agenda, whatever it may be, YOU are putting them in the public eye. Not to say that Johnston is any better, but he kept his mouth shut while he was with Bristol, and so far as I can tell, he didn’t start the attacks. Palin and her crew first started demonizing HIM to the media after the breakup with Bristol (if I’m remembering correctly). I’m not surprised that he is out there telling his side of the story, but I DO think he should let it drop. He’s told his side, and that’s all one can do. Be the bigger person and drop it, dude.
And as for the magazines…In Touch is just a tabloid rag, and People seems to be heading that way. Playgirl isn’t much better, albeit, but none of the magazines listed would really make my list as politically motivated.
Looks like we finally got that left-wing-leaning blogger that The Oversneer hinted about a while back. Coincidentally, we got a new left-leaning frequent commenter on the site too- Ed.
“So it’s not alright for lover-boy Levi to bare (not quite) all on the pages of Playgirl, but it’s totally fine to sell your boo-hoo story of being a single teenage mom/ex-VP candidate and mother-of-a-kid-with-Down-syndrome to a fine pillar of journalistic integrity like In Touch Weekly?”
If I were Bristol’s kid (once all grown up), I would be MUCH MORE ashamed of my daddy posing in Playgirl than my mommy posing in a tasteful picture with me and grandma on People.
Kind of a stretch. I mean, TECHNICALLY you could make the case for this hypocrisy, but somehow young Levi’s idea of famewhoring (the Playgirl shoot, and all the icky marketing buildup to that) isn’t quite the same as a spread in inTouch. And after all the absurd lies perpetuated by the media about Palin pre-election (while Barry Soetoro got daily BeeJays from them, over and over and over again) I’m liable to give her a pass for this.
Nice try tho.
Also, SJP, the snark might go over better if you ratchet down some of that ham-fisted delivery. I know I’m supposed to play nice, but you just sound sort sort of bitter, not clever.
I have to agree with Julie here. The entire post sounds bitter…and angry…and really mean, actually. And why? And where exactly is hypocrisy here? What, the Palins can’t give interviews now without being accused of “selling boo-hoo stories”? I, for one, find their story inspiring, not “boo-hoo” or however you put it. And this interview is not the kind of media exposure that Sarah Palin was objecting to, so…no hypocrisy here at all on the Palins’ part. Sorry.
Wait, so they’re glad they chose life?
So you mean they had a pregnancy, and realized there were many factors against them… and they weighed the factors and considered their options and made a choice?
I hope Palin allows other women to make a choice as well.
I absolutely hate it when women use their babies to get sympathy from people. Grrrrr.
What I continue to find most interesting is this: the liberals keep saying Sarah Palin is stupid/incompetent/unremarkable/pathetic/inarticulate (have they even HEARD Obama without the TelePrompter??)/etc. etc.
Yet every time her name comes up, the liberals just react so strongly.
If Palin is that worthless, why does the liberal machine go crazy at the mere mention of her name and try to tear her down? Why do they give her even more face-time and attention if she’s that bad? What are they afraid of?
No one is afraid of Sarah Palin per se – more that they go into shock figuring out how someone that dumb is held up as the best role model by the GOP and their fantical friends. So much for her whole abstinance before marriage schtick – but oops! my own unmarried teenage daugher got knocked up whilst under my roof issue… Now that’s hypocrisy right there.
Jay – do children do everything their parents say? Does Bristol take no responsibility for her own actions?
I have no children of my own. But I see parents try to give their children good values…and the kids do what they want anyway. Despite the values my brother and sister have tried to instill, I’ve seen my niece and nephew make mistakes…and learn that, gosh, their parents actually knew what they were talking about.
Yes, Sarah Palin prefers abstinence before marriage. But Bristol, like all children are free to make their own choices. Some of those choices will be different from what their parents would choose. I don’t know if you have children of your own, but if you do surely you know this already.
Palin haters like to use vague insults like, ‘Dumb’ when describing her, but they never elaborate on that adjective. I don’t follow politics a whole lot, but I haven’t seen her do anything overtly dumb. I’ve seen her make choices about her career, I’ve seen her make strong statements about her beliefs and ethics, and I’ve seen her support her family and protect them like a mother bear. What’s dumb about any of that? I think, in the liberal mind, Palin is ‘dumb’ because she disagrees with liberals. In my opinion, there’s nothing ‘progressive’ or ‘democratic’ about attacking a person’s intelligence simply for taking a different personal stance than your own.
Oh, sweet fancy Sanger. NO. No, Palin has plans even now, to bash down your door and force you to bear quintuplets while quilting and making your own soap out of bear fat.
Have you paid attention at all? Palin is not about denying anybody choices; she has FACED VILE THINGS from so-called supporters of “choice”, after choosing to bring her own special-needs child into the world. Of anybody involved in this whole brouhaha, it’s the abortion supporters that owe HER an apology, frankly. It looks to me like abortion enthusiasts are so threatened, so disturbed by her decision–and it was a decision–to allow Trig to draw breath, that even that choice looks to them like she’s trying to plunge us all into 1955. Well, she isn’t. No matter how many times you guys screech it, she isn’t. If she were that mired in delusional nostalgia, we’d never have heard of her, because she’s a woman.
In America, a woman can be anything she wants to be. Except conservative–that’s off-limits, because per liberals, we’re bought and paid for. Back to the kitchens, girls!
Jay and Ed, how about you go back to the Huffington Post and make up more disinformation about republicans. I am sure you can craft a more extreme version of BDS and PDS.
Wow. Much like a few weeks ago (“Global warming doesn’t exist/Alaska’s shoreline is doomed by global warming”) comments fail to see the conflict in Sarah’s two-faced “Levi can’t use his kid to fame-whore/Let me tell you about my kids in this magazine article”. The site is great in that it jabs the self anointed elite right where they are profiteering. Sadly, its readers seem to come to it as a haven for liberal bashing. Were this a Gore or Obama article the blood would be thick in the water. Sarah Palin is no fool. She knows when to hold her family forth to exemplify her values, and she knows when to cry foul when the subject of her family is inconvenient. In theater they would be considered props. She is as ruthless a self promoter as Al & Barak, and equally adept at double talk. (“I didn’t take money for a bridge/I mean, I gave back the money for a bridge”)
My prediction is the more Ms. Palin places herself in the public eye, the more you’ll see her on this site. Not because she’s a woman, but because she’s a politician.
It’s actually refreshing to see a gossip rag actually have someone conservative on their cover without bashing them or having some type of “shocker!” story. That being said, I prefer all famous people to keep their kids out of the spotlight, whether it’s the Palin women, or the POTUS, or a movie star. The kids did not ask for any fame. And Levi Johnston would still be a douche, with or without the Palins. Seems like it’s in his nature.
So…she’s not dumber than a box of hair, then? Because that’s the usual party line on Palin-bashing. It’s refreshing to see her intellect given even a grudging crumb of respect.
As for “haven for liberal-bashing”, well, you might have something there. Or rather, you would have something there, if liberals weren’t so helpful in providing their own sticks for us to use in said bashing.
Question: Does the article referred to in this post contain vast amounts of libel about Levi Johnston? If so, I’d concede that he and the Palin camp are about even. If not, they just might still owe him.
Had Palin gone to great lengths to keep her kids out of the public eye, she’d have been crucified for “hiding” them, ESPECIALLY in the case of Trig. She hasn’t done so, so naturally she’s guilty of cynical exploitation.
Is what people did, mailing coathangers and whatnot, extremely distasteful? Yes. Absolutely. I know some girls who were almost expelled from a university for making some weird protest involving sticking coathangers all over campus when a pro-life person came to speak.
And that is stupid.
But people like that don’t represent the majority of pro-choicers anymore than Pat Robertson’s views on Haiti represent the majority of Christians. I know it’s a really contentious debate sometimes, but I think a lot of people ARE a little freaked out by Palin because, as I mentioned previously, they have a knee-jerk “she’s going to steal my birth control” reaction. And that’s really something that Palin has set herself up for in her political/public life.
I don’t think there are many people out there who think abortion should be used in place of birth control and responsible sex. But there are a lot of people who are very afraid that the option will be removed entirely, whether they would ever use it or not. And a lot of the stories floating around about Palin, such as making women pay for their rape exams, are pretty freakin’ scary. It’s hard to separate truth from fiction where Palin’s involved, and I think the reason people react so strongly to her is because of the implications of WHAT IF the things floating around about her are true.
Beige: You need to realize that to liberals all conservatives are dumber that a box of exceptionally dumb rocks, except when they are evil geniuses plotting to drag us into useless wars and plotting to kill old people and minorities. The paradox isn’t a problem to them because they are to stupid to realize it is inconsistent, they can’t grasp the fact that someone intelligent would ever disagree with them so conservatives must be stupid, but when they don’t want to take responsibility for something they claim they were tricked, and since they are all super-smart, conservatives must be evil geniuses.
I’m curious (not sarcastic, just curious) about the stories “floating around” about Palin. Are the stories verifiable, or just nasty rumors? How, exactly, has Palin set herself up for suspicion regarding her desire to coerce pregnancies? I’m asking, not being snide.
Because frankly, all I’ve seen from her detractors are vicious, hateful snipes about “Bible Spice”, and how stupid [they think] she is, and how awful it is of her to hunt or fish or do anything stereotypically, outdoorsily (?) Alaskan. As has been pointed out repeatedly on other posts here, Palin didn’t propose abstinence-only sex ed; she proposed that abstinence be ENCOURAGED, because it really is the only surefire way of avoiding both pregnancy and STDs, barring rape or divine intervention. The fact that her daughter engaged in activities of which Palin probably wouldn’t approve simply means that her daughter engaged in activities of which Palin probably wouldn’t approve. It doesn’t prove that Palin didn’t teach the same thing at home that she said in public; it shows that Bristol didn’t follow through.
Had Bristol–OR Sarah–had an abortion rather than carry their babies to term, THEN I’d see some hypocrisy in her stance. As it stands, they’re both dealing with the consequences of their actions. Has Sarah referred to either baby as a “punishment”, as the Anointed One did? (Maybe she has; if so, I’d be really disappointed in her.)
Beige –
Dumber than a box of hair? Not by any means. She’s served as Governor, managed to extend her 15 minutes of fame into a career and played the political two-step to perfection. There a million people who are more attractive, more experienced, and better speakers but none of them had the talent or saavy to rise from obscure beauty queen to presidential hopeful. She’s the Ashton Kutcher of the GOP. I think that, at least, speaks to good marketing. Regardless, she managed it. Doesn’t mean I think she’d be a good President.
Time, however, will tell. She’s trying to re-image herself. No one does that without having to closet some skeletons. How successfully she does will be tracked on these pages. She’s guilty of cynical exploitation of her children because instead of acknowledging them and moving on, she’s using Trig and Bristol as photo-ops. I can respect her pro-life stance, I can’t accept her rolling out Trig as “living proof”. I child needs a parent to protect them, not display them for political ornamentation. Perhaps she should launch him in a balloon?
Can’t answer your question. Levi is a pimple that will go away if you stop picking at it. The issue is personal and should kept in the family, not dragged out to improve “Q” ratings.
“Jay and Ed, how about you go back to the Huffington Post and make up more disinformation about republicans. I am sure you can craft a more extreme version of BDS and PDS.”
You do realize that all I said was that based on past behavior, I think they got paid.
I offered no judgement, because I don’t care if they got paid or not.
Is it my fault that the teenager has already been involved in a bidding war for pictures of her little one.
Of anybody involved in this whole brouhaha, it’s the abortion supporters that owe HER an apology, frankly. It looks to me like abortion enthusiasts are so threatened, so disturbed by her decision–and it was a decision–to allow Trig to draw breath, that even that choice looks to them like she’s trying to plunge us all into 1955. Well, she isn’t. No matter how many times you guys screech it, she isn’t.
Thank you, Beige! That is the crux of the matter when it comes to the crazy Palin hatred. She’s not “boohooing” or trying to get “sympathy”. She’s trying to show that children like Trig are human beings with intrinsic worth and that they deserve life as much as anyone else. For some reason, certain people find this very idea threatening.
Had Palin gone to great lengths to keep her kids out of the public eye, she’d have been crucified for “hiding” them, ESPECIALLY in the case of Trig. She hasn’t done so, so naturally she’s guilty of cynical exploitation.
Again, thank you! She’s damned if she does and she’s damned if she doesn’t.
Presumably the DNC is plumbing the very depths of sorority parties this very moment, in a coast-to-coast search. 2016 ain’t gonna wait, you know.
Beige, this is what a quick Google search brought me on the rape kit thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/
Wow…Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well on Deceiver. Huge difference between a deadbeat dead spreading malicious ‘unfounded stories’ and being a general ass, and a mom/grandmother/baby being on a magazine cover. Unfortunately, when the name ‘Palin’ comes up, the double digit IQ crowd crawl over each other trying to slam her. Sorry…get over it. Can we get the previous blogger back (Simon?) ? He didn’t make illogical leaps to show ‘hypocrisy’ or hop on a bandwagon that played out almost a year ago.
If she did know about that, Pearce, then it IS reprehensible. I understand wanting to cut costs and trying to lighten the taxpayers’ burden, but…nuh-uh. Not cool.
I don’t agree that she, or any political party in particular, is responsible for the prevalence of violence against women in Alaska. From experience, I can tell you that a great many people who relocate to Alaska are doing so because they’re fleeing from criminal charges/mental health issues in the Lower 48. (Notice that I didn’t say “most” or “all”; I said “a great many”.) That tells me that Alaska, much like frontier towns of the old West, attracts people who aren’t interested in behaving according to society’s standards–which puts those who ARE law-abiding in harm’s way.
I think she probably knew about it, which is a pretty chilling thought. Then again, that’s a subject that gets under my skin pretty easily. And by that subject, I mean sexual violence in general, not simply violence against women. Sex crimes against men are reported even less, and to a certain extent we as a society seem to think such things are okay in certain situations (see also: prison rape).
Alaska is a dangerous place all around. And it’s got high crime rates, accidental death rates, percentage of alcoholic population, disappearances, etc. to show for it. I think it’s almost exactly like the situation with the Old West, to be honest. I’ve heard it’s a gorgeous state, and I’d like to visit at some point, but at the moment, you couldn’t pay me to live there. What’s sad is that when you think about it, it probably has the highest rates of seasonal affective disorder of any state in the country, and SAD will aggravate any underlying mental condition.
Still, my response to that sheriff would have been “Don’t know how to budget for rape kits? Guess you should crack down on rape.”
*hahahaha* GOP supporters get panties in twist when one of their so-called ’shinning lights’ gets called for being dumb.
Dumb is holding onto a belief system based on Stone Age superstition.
Palin is batshit crazy – and if you can’t see it now, wait for when you stupidly vote her into another position of power.
How sad that America seems to be rapidly rolling back into the dark ages…
- oh, and funny how there’s all this call about everyone having the right to have an opinion – but it seems that many commentators here only believe in that when people agree with them… so much for critical thinking and debate.
“With or without religion,
you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things,
that takes religion.”
—Steven Weinberg, US physicist (1933 – )
quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
Because I can’t help myself:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo
YOWZA.
Unless he was photographed smoking a joint, fondling a drunk/drugged 13-year-old, or sexually harassing a blue-dressed intern, I don’t give a crap if Brown posed. Post THOSE photos and we’ll talk.
I don’t know about “shinning lights”, Jay (?!?), but your post proves quite ably that you don’t have to have a dick to be one, regardless of your belief system.