which is why Steinem's takedown is so effective, it's a feminist, progressive takedown of Palin instead of using sexist non-progressive bullshit.

But the problem is that a lot of Blogger Boiz don't really care about reproductive freedom or women's equality and so it doesn't occur to them to go after Palin on these issues. Because they don't see these as issues except, of course, to beat Democratic women over the head with.

Whatever I may think of Hillary Clinton on other matters, I do believe that she would fight to the death for the Democratic Party.

...for the rest of us

A good many people have one thing as a goal: unseat the powers that be that gave us this travesty of an election. To protect what few rights we have left as women, we are going to work for progressive down ticket Dems. At this point, it doesn't matter which team we pick. We're screwed as woment. The only thing we can do is make sure there is some core of a progressive party left after the purge.
Steinem can stuff it. The time for her to speak up was back when Hillary still had a chance. Yes, I know she did but she and Katha Pollit switched to Obama without demanding a damn thing from him.
So, thanks, G-L-O-R-I-A, we'll take it from here.
Come together at The Confluence

Back in June, we told the Clinton campaign that this was much bigger than her and her ability to affect our voting decisions is very limited. Not because she isn't a great leader. She is. But this issue goes to the very soul of what it means to be a Democrat- honoring every voter. Obama didn't and he's the one who is running. We're not voting for him and there is a growing contingent who will be voting for Palin. The progressive blogosphere sent them over the edge with the stuff on the over the top non-stop misogyny of the past several days. That's it. No mas. Beating Hillary to help him save his bacon will backfire on Obama. We're sick of it.
Come together at The Confluence

ended, now is it? (and i love that there are buffy fans here) indeed, if you followed the storyline, the select group of slayers gathered "after" the end, not in fact the entire female population of the world.

it's a question i often ask myself: is 'total' feminism possible, in the way that we effectively have total acceptance of men's rights? even in those states where there are slaves, there are men enslaved who fundamentally believe they have the right to be free. will we ever get to that point with women? it's hard to say in a patriarchy-constructed discourse.

anyway, palin is obviously a demon who clawed her way up from hell into a female body (angel ref) and should be treated as such. glad to see folks here sticking to the message many people are telling me "will work." after the election i'm going to write about lessons learned this cycle, lessons about feminism; i think i want to see 'how it ends' first before i decide what it is i'm being taught.

Steinem never connected Palin's beliefs to how she governed, really--and that's the relevant point. We've heard this before, too. Palin is not Schafly -- who was a total hypocrite.

And i thought feminism was about equality and opportunity--Steinem should make it clear that she's speaking as an Obama supporter--she certainly isn't supporting Palin, who is a feminist--and a working mom who actually has a husband who gave up his job for her, which helps equality and equal parent responsibilities far more than most other families--political or not.

Just because Palin isn't pro-choice and liberal doesn't mean she's not a feminist. She actually belongs to Feminists for Life at a time when many liberal woman run away from the term "feminist".

As if the Republicans aren't misogynistic?

As if Sarah Palin has any feminist credentials?

As if putting the American economy in the hands of people who want to crash it will help advance the cause of progressivism?

Look, Obama is no saint; I understand that. But the Republicans have proven time and again that they have no room for liberals in their party. Why any feminist would want to throw in their lot with Bible-thumpers who believe life begins at conception I will never understand.

(BTW, if Obama does lose and it leads to a purge of the DNC, it won't be the conservatives who go. Trust me.)

...for the rest of us

etc...

Trashing her as a woman who hurts all women and as not a feminist is baseless unless you show how she actually hurts women.

they're stupid or not?

whether they believe in God or not?

whether they would never abort or not?

whether they work or not?

whether they defer to their husbands or not?

whether they're Democrats or not?

...

i'll embarrass myself; my almost eidetic memory (ok, not really, but close) reminds me of all these little details that it's totally not worth hashing out here on a 'political' blog. but if you want to know what i'm remembering, think of the abused final ep 'new' slayer who stood up for herself by catching her abuser's fist; she didn't join them on the hellmouth (as i believe josh was implying, b/c she didn't have to, she was already there). and no, i'm not thinking of Jasmine, although that's worth watching again. i'm thinking of angel season 5, when necromancy was dealt with in at least two eps. surely you remember the Senator?

anyway, returing to the Serious: one blogger reminds the rest of the blogosphere of the very issues discussed here. y'all aren't alone; sexism for sexism is not the answer, it seems.

that's why she's effective. I don't agree with McCain/Palin (but I don't think they will govern nearly as bad as everyone claims) nor do I need reasons not to vote for them.

I need a reason to vote for Obama that overcomes the bogus election. We had FL in 2000, OH (NM, etc.) in 2004, and now the Dem primary in 2008. Each instance is less obvious, but just as potent. This slow decent to casual acceptance scares me. Dems made a a stink in 2000 and 2004 (but gave up), in 2008 they were doing it themselves. I'm not willing to "get over" a fraud election. I can't accept a stolen election even if it is in my best interests or if I believe it "is best for the people". That's how tyrannies start. And that is something that I want no part of.

I mean the Buffy one, not any gawd-associated one.

She dug the power, but what side she wielded it for wasn't all that important to her.

I'm kinda disappointed in Gloria's piece. Pretty pushbutton. I've heard her do off-the-cuff analysis that was much better than this.

Eg, Palin is antithetical to what 'at least a plurality' of women support. Plurality? wtf was that, just a way to edge in more laundry list items that some women, somewhere will be offended by? Is hunting a feminist issue?

What's the premise here, what's good for women is what's popular with women? That Palin's not a feminist?

The Steinem piece is making the rounds, cited by people who'd wouldn't give Gloria the time of day if she asked. The argument I wish she'd made (maybe was trying to make) is that while Palin, as an example of a strong woman in a position of power, may help change ideas about whether women can be fit for power (imagery alone is powerful; and dollars to donuts Gloria's made that very argument at some point), her views are mostly antithetical to the critical types of progress we need in order to achieve real equality.

Instead, it's a laundry list of buzzwords of all the things any good liberal or woman must faint at the sight of, or run around screaming about.

I'm a bit tired of this idea that I must be forced to admit that Palin's an irredeemable monster or lose my feminist cred, or maybe even get kicked out of the woman club. You can admit that an opponent may have some strengths or some valuable characteristics without ceding the argument overall; just make the argument credibly that the negatives outweigh the positives.

After all, I loved Faith, but I loved Buffy more.

And should get muy points for it. I should have said Palin is Faith pre-path to redemption. But I didn't know just how wonky the Buffy fans were here!

And Gov. Sarah Palin is no Faith.

I do so miss Buffy....

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

It is not because of feminist issues, but because of their laissez-faire economic philosophies, that I regard Republicans as categorically unfit to hold high political office. I have no desire to return to 1930.

And I was trying to say something nice about Hillary Clinton, for Chrissakes. Football's on. As you were.

...for the rest of us

It was an analogy, not a recommendation!

I'm with Amberglow, I'm tired of the tests. They're the last resort of those without positive arguments. They make me cranky.

And I must say, anyone who castigates PUMAs et al because of 'perceived' misogyny during the primaries (during the primaries? when did it end?), are just about to feel the real power of perceived misogyny once the Republicans get done with it.

Believe me, Rudy Freakin' Nutball Guiliani is the very last person I want to be stuck with standing up against sexism, but it seems he's my only choice this year.

No.

I'm not voting for Palin. Or McCain.

Your argument fails here: while yes, people emotions are often tied up in their choices, you haven't connected that phenomenon to the people who are, in this case, making a strategic choice.

It's an old lawyers trick (an old debater's trick too, I'm sure). State a truism, or near-truism, ignore that it's nonresponsive to the question or issue at hand, and demand your opponent refute it. When they can't, because it is, after all, a truism (Are you saying puppy-killers are good!!?!?!), declare victory.

Most judges don't have all that much choice which cases come before them, or which they must decide. Chief Judges have some power over who gets to the write the opinion. But not everyone gets to be a Chief Judge, and few judges get to be Chief the whole time they're on the bench.

So it's more that when Presidents go looking for candidates to appoint, they zero in on those that don't have any strong written record on hot issues, but who they have some reason to believe are solidly on their side.

(i think, at least)--

The Rain in Spain ... -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfacto...

"... one of the "benefits" of McCain's pick is his total control of—if not her image, that's now impossible—her policies, her ideas, all of her political substance. Because of Palin’s perceived lack of interest/indifference to serious foreign policy concerns and limited record of opinions on such matters, she is a dream pick for McCain because, unlike Joe Biden, who has thought substantively about global and domestic concerns for decades, Sarah Palin is a relative blank slate.

... In fact what she has been asked to do, in preparation for this evening, is to simply parrot McCain on every ideological and policy level: To not have a mind of her own, to not have come to her opinions on our most pressing problems through careful thought, reflection, analysis, or legislative action. She is clearly willing to do so. ...
Simply put, it feels like they picked a woman with no record or opinion on tough FOREIGN POLICY positions ... but with extremely strong views on DOMESTIC social issues—all of which seems to me to say, she's being kept in her place. ..."

http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/

on choice--
"What are Palin's views on abortion?

Palin has said she is "as pro-life as any candidate can be" and called abortion "an atrocity." She has supported mandatory parental consent, and while she is pro-contraception, has also indicated her preference for abstinence education over "explicit sex-ed programs." She would permit abortion in cases where the mother's life was endangered, but not in the case of rape or incest." (links at Slate)

about both Michelle and Sarah--(both born same year as me--1964)--

Let Us Now Praise 44-Year-Old Women -- http://www.slate.com/id/2199044/

Her hunting/fishing /airborne wolf-slaughtering positions are not about the environment, they're about the $$$$$$. The wolves and bears don't kick back the bucks the way oil companies do. From a Time article:
"Our main concern with Sarah Palin's positions are that they are based on doing what is best for the oil industry, and not what is best for Americans," says David Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club.

Her actions w/r/t her sister's ex are not about his personality, they're about her misuse of her office. As Sam Waterston's character said on Law and Order last night, you cannot excuse a criminal act because the victim was no saint. Palin's already lawyered up over this, by the way.

Her emails in that same case, sent from a Yahoo account, indicate a knowledge that her behavior wasn't squeaky-clean in that instance, at the very least; and if that was an attempt to separate herself as a private citizen from herself as governor in that case, she should have written a paper letter to the trooper's immediate commander with her complaints, not sent an email to a state official who worked for her -- from her official account or not, from her state computer or not, she was, as we say in basketball, "working the refs." Again, it's the actions that indicate that she knew what she was doing was questionable, if not outright illegal, that concern me. An "open letter" about her at Wordpress may have spawned many of the investigations -- but it's as likely that the McCain camp simply fell for her "most popular girl in middle school" personality; she is described as a babe in that open letter, but she's also described as a shrewd pol with a gift for taking credit when the ideas she "puts out there" catch on in popular opinion. Her timing may be her best asset; apparently her ability to judge -- and catch the coming -- wave is superb.

But I've come to believe that it won't matter on 11/5/08 anyway. The machines and the media will decide the outcome, regardless of who votes, or how many; the game is so rigged that outside looks like inside, up like down and wrong like right to many voters.

So. Because I still, for some unfathomable reason, give a damn, let me try to dissuade you from your paeans of feminist adoration for Palin, amberglow.

The woman is 44 years old. She has never had to fight a battle for women's rights. She didn't enlist in the service. She didn't get a commission in the military or the Publich Health Service. She didn't get an engineering degree in college.

She got her start in politics not as a maverick but as a bully and, true to the Republican operational plan, she went after the big $$$$ supporters and brought in the big-money, hot-button issues -- to win a mayor's race in a town that didn't even have a police department, it was so small. This is not feminism; this is not standing up for women. From Time's article profiling her:

Four years later, she took on her former workout buddy in a race that quickly became contentious. In Stein's view, Palin's main transgression was injecting big-time politics into a small-town local race. "It was always a nonpartisan job," he says. "But with her, the state GOP came in and started affecting the race." While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys' club, Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners' rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice). "It got to the extent that — I don't remember who it was now — but some national antiabortion outfit sent little pink cards to voters in Wasilla endorsing her," he says.
Vicki Naegele was the managing editor of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman at the time. "[Stein] figured he was just going to run your average, friendly small-town race," she recalls, "but it turned into something much different than that." Naegele held the same conservative Christian beliefs as Palin but didn't think they had any place in local politics.

"I just thought, That's ridiculous, she should concentrate on roads, not abortion," says Naegele.

She should be concentrating on roads today instead of shotgun weddings -- more bridges like the I-35 disaster last year, the nation doesn't need, and demonstrably doesn't need far more desperately than it needs yet more abortion-related fear-mongering from either or both sides in a national election. From the Times article, it's noteworthy that she didn't call for restrictions on operating hours in the town's bars after her win, although she did put a gag order on all city employees and department heads. She knew, even then, the two big rules of being a GOP winner: stay on message, and bring in the money.

After 8 years of W, haven't we had enough of that kind of "leadership" in this nation?

I think we've had a surfeit. I'm sick of it. I want something different. Something that might be better, can hardly be worse, and offers the perhaps naive aspiration that it will lower the general toxicity of our national politics, our national policies, and our national discourse.

Getting back to Palin: she didn't choose to work behind the camera in broadcast journalism, or to work in print journalism at all -- where what you write is a static indictment of your integrity, if you are the kind of journo Bob Somerby excoriates regularly.

But Palin has, verifiably, used her power as governor to undermine the safety net for young single mothers. And if the words "shotgun wedding" don't give you the shivers, you're not old enough to understand what I heard a 19-year-old Mormon girl say on NPR today.

Right here:

"Been told here that I can’t talk about the truth of Sarah Palin’s viciously oppressive commitment to destroy women’s rights to control their own body because she hasn’t succeeded yet in destroying them, and that pointing out the truly undeniably expanding evidence of the failure of her philosophies somehow constitutes crawling up into her uterus or that of her daughter. (A particularly disgusting misrepresentation, that.) Horsefeathers.

a) Nobody has told you you can't talk about that. That is false, or "horsefeathers"
b) Nobody has said "pointing out... the failure of her philosophies constitutes crawling...."

What you said that was objectionable was this:

"The unfortunate pregnancy/blessed event for her daughter - waaay too young, IMNSHO - would also be a non-issue were it not for Mother Palin’s stances favoring abstinence-only sex education and opposition to birth control and elective abortion. It is the transference of these personal choices into public policy that makes them - and their soon-to-be-clearly-evident rather dramatic failure to avoid undesirable pregnancy - not just fair game but in my view a necessary part of the electoral discussion."

The meaning was pretty clear: game on with the 17-year old. I objected, not to anything else you said (initially) but only to how you used her daughter in that context. You could do everything you say you wanted to argue about and LEAVE THE DAMN DAUGHTER OUT OF IT! What I said:

"You can’t seriously believe that it is humane to use a 17-year old’s pregnancy (bad choice or not bad choice) into presidential politics. Is that really how low we have all sunk? Have we really gotten to the point where people’s children’s choices are fair game in politics?"

And that is (one of the things I guess) that made you jump the shark:

"Oh, and thanks for the direction, between you and amberglow I’ve now gotten instructions on what comments I can legitimately make and where I should be making them. Great to have the little authoritarian cabal operating here now, really great."

So now calling people on bullshit is being an "authoritarian cabal" operating to tell you what you can and cannot say?

Toughen up, BIO. If you are going to "bring it" like this, you should not be surprised that you will have to defend your statements.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

After reading a few comments here I thought I would point out that this particular post, posted by Lambert, where this comment thread is happening is entitled "Massive Takedown" and praises a "massive takedown" of Gov. Sarah Palin, Republican V.P. candidate, aka "Handmaiden of the Apocalypse".

That was a joke, that "handmaiden" thing....

Anyway, I guess that's what happens when you let your feelings get in the way of ending the apocalypse: you support massive takedowns of the apocalypse enablers. Or something like that.

Just sayin'.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

From the same opinion piece you posted:

This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.

So, this is why Steinem believe that Sarah Palin was picked? Because she's an unqualified "Yes Man?" Sounds kind of...yeah.

If I don't laugh I'll cry, etc:

Well, she works too, maybe. We'll see if the evangelicals are a real army to help her conquer the world, or have crumbled into dust, as Illyria found when she finally broke through into the vault she thought would contain her minions of victory.

Feminists for Life -- not so sure they're not feminists. This is a bit of a compliated one. I hate to make any one issue into the feminist litmus test/loyalty test, even one as central as abortion. And at least they don't run around shouting that's they're not feminists because we're in a post-feminist age where the act of making a choice, any choice, soup or salad with dinner, is a demonstration of girlpower.

That wouldn't make Palin a feminist per se, just because she belongs, any more than me joining the NRA would make me a gun owner.

Seems like the question comes down to whether one can be a feminist based on ideology alone, actions alone, some minimal mix of both, or simple self-identification. Probably a discussion for another thread.

But the combination of Steinem's laundry-list piece and Lambert's Stepford/Fembot catch seems to me to be again, admitting that Democrats view women, and 'their issues' as some sort of seasonal decorations that are best stored away most of the year, and only brought out when the holiday arrives. Yeah, time to get out the Feminist Wind Talkers, they'll help win the battle but clearly they're a convenient tactic, not an integral part of the forces.

Apologies for the mixed metaphors.

Largely in the eye of the beholder. The Democrats and the political blogs have done both (as well as nasty smears and fetishizing the irrelevant).

The Republicans, of course, want to convert criticism into trashing in the eyes of the voters, so they exaggerate. It's what they do. But their exaggeration doesn't mean there's no trashing going on.

Trashing seems to be taking any aspect of Palin's person and heaping derision and scorn on it. Criticism would be looking to her bad policy stances and explaining (or at least discussing) the various badnesses. Valid criticism would be analyzing that which is bad and truthful. (It's funny, in the pile-on about being Mayor of Wacilla, each iteration reduced the town's population by about a thousand. By the end of next week, I expect only Palin's family to be counted as residents).

After being unable to click through to anything last night on the link in Sarah's comment above, "But Palin has, verifiably, used her power as governor to undermine the safety net for young single mothers (http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-74901)" to see what it was, I tried again this AM and found it active.

The link was to a video "IReport," a viewer submitted piece to CNN. I didn't watch the video itself because I'm on slowww country DSL, but the brief descriptive text under the video included a link to a Raw Story post.

The Raw Story piece, in turn, was a rehash of and link to the same Washington Post story (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tra...) about which a commenter on another blog had raised the question that set me off looking for facts on this issue to begin with.

So full circle.

The Post story is simply flat-out wrong by virtue of omission. The reporter got the budget sheet Palin had marked up with the cut to the Covenant House funding and wrote it up without going any further than that, even to look into the previous year's state funding or to Covenant House itself.

The RI blog I mentioned above, along with several others, including the dread Michelle Malkin, whose site I decline to give a single hit to, did look into it and was able to fairly simply fill in the details the Post reporter didn't bother with. That site's post on the subject is here http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/00...

We're in a pretty sorry fucking state of affairs when this old lefty has to go plowing through right-wing blogs to find factual information backed up with public documents about what overnight became an article of faith and a talking point among liberals about a Republican politician.

Moral of the story. You can absorb talking points and accusations from advocacy sources with an agenda and then squeeze your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALA because they fit so nicely with your preconceived beliefs, or you can understand that these sources are fighting a propaganda war and will lie and distort in a "good cause" just as easily as the bad guys do for their cause and *at least* remain skeptical until there's some kind of actual evidence one way or another.

In this case, as in so many others, the whole thing was touched off by a sloppy, lazy, dishonest, ultimately false report by one of our most respected news organizations-- and "most respected" ain't saying much these days.

So second moral. DO NOT trust the news media now any more than you trusted them during the Florida 2000 debacle that sent so many of us screaming to the Internet for information in the first place.

Amberglow, I can't find a thing that traces back to an actual quote or written statement from Palin on the subject. The Anchorage Daily News would seem to be the best source, but their site search engine doesn't seem to work because it turns up nothing on Palin + contraception, or birth control, or even condoms.

The search engine doesn't even turn up *its own article* (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/electio...), which appears to be the main, if not only, source for the assertion by Time and other reasonably reputable MSM outfits that she is "pro-contraception." Unfortunately, this article provides no source for the flat statement "She is pro-contraception," never mind a quote from Palin herself.

Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, so I went to their Web site and found browsing interesting. Like all liberal feminists, I assumed this outfit was one 'o those right-wing covers with a nice-sounding name, but I was suprised to see that their official position statements are a heck of a lot more reasonable and less draconian than conventional wisdom on the left would have it.

This from their FAQs page (http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/inde...)

"Does Feminists for Life want to criminalize women for having abortions?

"The early feminists enacted laws against abortion as consumer protection for women.

"FFL has never advocated prosecuting women seeking abortion, although we believe that women are capable of following the law. Why doesn't the law hold accountable those who threaten or coerce a woman into an abortion by withholding financial resources and emotional support? Abandonment is a powerful form of coercion.

"We should criminalize anyone who withholds child support, fires a woman from her job because she is pregnant, refuses to accommodate her pregnancy, expels her from school, or threatens violence-- any act that forces her to choose between sacrificing her child and sacrificing her education, career plans, or safety from violence."

Dunno whether the first sentence about early feminists is actually true, but the following two paragraphs I rather like. What's not feminist about those positions?

But then just when I was feeling all "Awwww, how nice," they had to go and tack this bit on: "We believe that we should hold responsible those who profit from women's pain-- especially the abortion industry."

Gak. That "abortion industry" phrase is so loathesome. Taking the word "industry" onto stuff you don't like is Propaganda 101 and an ugly but successful practice of the right wing.

Anyway, then they end up with this: "Most important, we need to jump into hyperdrive to provide resources and solutions that will support women."

So here's what their FAQs say about contraception:

"Feminists for Life's mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission. Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women. Our membership enjoys a broad spectrum of opinion that reflects the diversity of opinions among the American public."

Which therefore tells us zippo about Palin's position.

She's apparently hardly said a word about it, but one would have to guess that if the Anchorage Daily News article in the heat of the governor's race had misstated her position, she would have made a fuss about it, and there's no report I can find that she did.

I think it's reasonably safe to assume she's generally OK on basic contraception (although she's obviously going to be opposed to clear "abortifacients"), but given the paucity of info on the public record, it's not a lock.

She clearly hasn't wanted to talk about this stuff, but whether that's because she isn't interested in forcing her views on the rest of us or whether she's a "stealth" politician just waiting for the right political climate to pounce, I honestly have no idea. If she's the latter, she's not as bright as I think she is because popular opinion continues to slowly but steadily come our way on abortion and gay rights, and the basic contraception debate was settled long ago.

The conclusion I draw from all of the above, always amenable to correction by actual facts or new statements or actions, is that she holds these views personally but isn't such a fanatic about them that she'd buck the tide of public opinion by leading a wingnut crusade to write them into law.

Doesn't make her good on the issues, but it sure takes her out of the Rick Santorum/Bill Frist/etcetcetc category of extremist activists, IMO.

I'm with bringiton, there. That's not logic we can believe in, my friends.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

I reckon that's harmless enough.
From the FCA.org website:

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is touching millions of lives... one heart at a time. Since 1954, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes has been challenging coaches and athletes on the professional, college, high school, junior high and youth levels to use the powerful medium of athletics to impact the world for Jesus Christ. FCA is the largest Christian sports organization in America. FCA focuses on serving local communities by equipping, empowering and encouraging people to make a difference for Christ.

The FCA Vision
To see the world impacted for Jesus Christ through the influence of athletes and coaches.

The FCA Mission
To present to athletes and coaches and all whom they influence the challenge and adventure of receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, serving Him in their relationships and in the fellowship of the church.

The FCA Values
Our relationships will demonstrate steadfast commitment to Jesus Christ and His Word through Integrity, Serving, Teamwork and Excellence.

I reckon that would be a way of evangelizing.

Of course, the FCA was nearly unheard-of when I was in high school; now it's everywhere.

And of course the FCA isn't a discriminatory organization.
There's no reinforcement of cliques or religious bigotry among young athletes who belong to -- or don't belong to, but want to play sports and represent their schools anyhow -- the FCA.

Their statement of faith doesn't read like a Dominionist creed at all:

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is only one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful men (women) regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit, by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

And I'm Chuck Norris's stunt double.

Wikipedia says this:
Palin was originally baptized as a Roman Catholic, but her parents switched to the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church, where she was rebaptized at age 12 or 13, and attended under pastor Ed Kalnins until 2002.[120][121] When she is in the capital, she attends Juneau Christian Center,[122] another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church in Wasilla is The Wasilla Bible Church, under Pastor Larry Kroon[123] an independent congregation.[124][125] Palin has described herself as a "Bible-believing Christian" who attends a non-denominational church.[126] The National Catholic Reporter described her as a "post-denominational" Christian.[127]

The notes are here:
#120 ^ Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan, (August 30, 2008). "Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.
#121 ^ Gorsk, Eric (2008-08-30). "Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket", Associated Press. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.
#122 ^ "Statement Concerning Sarah Palin". Juneau Christian Center (2008-09-03). Retrieved on 2008-09-04.
#123 ^ Pepper, David. "Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper". Church on the Rock. Retrieved on 2008-09-04.
#124 ^ "Wasilla Bible Church FAQ". Retrieved on 2008-09-05.
#125 ^ Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla." Newsweek. Sept. 2, 2008.
#126 ^ Newton-Small, Jay (August 29, 2008). "Interview with Sarah Palin". Time.
#127 ^ Allen, John. "McCain's VP choice a woman — and a post-denominationalist". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.

So far as I'm concerned there's some indication that she may well be a Pentecostal, even a Dominionist. And if she's a feminist, certainly she's one who wants to prevent other women from choosing differently than she has chosen. She's a card-carrying member of FFL. Far as that goes, Feminists For Life owns up to its own agenda right on its front page:
"Women deserve better than Abortion."
They have a motto: "Refuse to choose."

Says a lot, IMNVHO, about Palin's politics.

"Refuse to choose." They're behind "right to know" laws. They're thrilled about Pennsylvania's "fetal homicide" bill. They support the idea that no woman ever actually chooses freely, but all abortions are coerced "to please others who do not welcome her child."

So I reckon the kind of feminist Palin is is the kind of feminist who sees nothing wrong with not just refusing to make her own decisions about when / whether to bear a child, but making sure other women never have to be bothered with such a choice. She just advises them to "refuse to choose."

Refuse to choose. Peace begins in the womb. Women deserve better than abortion.

Pretty high-sounding terminology, all right.

Especially considering that it all advocates putting women in their proper place -- mothers. Maybe wives, maybe not. Maybe nurturers, maybe not. But definitely producers of children, first, foremost and always.

Palin says she doesn't think rape or incest is a reason to allow abortion. I say she doesn't speak for me. Does that make me anti-feminist?

First, when you say, "Palin says she doesn’t think rape or incest is a reason to allow abortion. I say she doesn’t speak for me. Does that make me anti-feminist?" I'm sure it makes you all tingly about the terrific sarcastic smackdown you believe you've just delivered, but it's really just kinda silly and sure as heck doesn't do anything to advance a discussion, or even a good argument.

But more centrally-- I work nights and I'm missing my deadlines tonight as it is, so I'll have to come back and read your post here more carefully than the quick skim I just gave it before I can say anything about its specifics.

But I have a couple honest questions for you that go, I think, to the heart of this discussion, and understanding the answers maybe might keep us from talking past each other.

Do you believe that believing that life starts at conception make someone, by definition, a loon and a wingnut extremist? Further, do you believe that everyone who believes life begins at conception is, by definition, universally bound and determined to force their beliefs on everyone else?

Do you grant any legitimacy at all to the belief that life starts at conception?

Do you believe that being an evangelical Christian is, by definition, to be a loon and a wingnut and an extremist?

I ask because I don't believe any of those things, and it sounds like maybe you do. If you do, then I understand entirely why any attempt to explore the actual record of a conservative Christian politician or other public figure would seem utterly beside the point-- at best.

If you do believe those things, then I think it might be useful to argue for that point of view directly.

I apologize if I've inadvertently suggested you hold views that you do not, and if so, I welcome the correction. But it does seem to me that we're not really arguing from a common set of core assumptions, so I'm just trying to tease out where we differ in basic approach.

That it is okay for a woman to want to stop other women from having a right to decide for themselves whether or not to continue a pregnancy?

That it is okay for a woman who believes that rape and incest are not legitimate reasons to choose not to continue that pregnancy to be vice president, or even President?

That it is okay for one person's conscience -- or one person's views -- to be so overarching that they must take precedence over all opposition?

What my religious beliefs or tenets may be has little bearing on the freedom I believe others -- even those who disagree with me -- need in order to live their own lives by their own lights.

But yes, I do resent having "Christian" belief used as a sledgehammer.

I do resent having puritanical morality -- particularly when its basis is rooted in the superstitions and customs of desert nomads thousands of years ago -- forced on not only me but every woman like me, when there is no equal enforcement for a man to keep it zipped, for instance.

Make of my position what you will. The issue is not a religious issue per se; the issue is using religion to cloak "keeping them in their place" whether "them" is women (criminalizing abortion) or blacks (voter purges in FL in 2000 disguised as "removing felons and fraudulent registrations") or Native Americans (smallpox blankets, slaughtering the buffalo, killing all the tribe's horses) -- and all those things were done in the name of "morality".

I do think there's a difference between a blastocyst and a baby, yes. A big difference.

But I don't *want* you to say anything, Sarah. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, preferably from your own statements and not guesswork on my part.

I didn't ask whether you think it's, for example, "okay for one person’s conscience — or one person’s views — to be so overarching that they must take precedence over all opposition"

Honestly, that's a strawman, Sarah. Nobody would subscribe to that when it's put that way, not even Sarah Palin.

And *there's no evidence* that Palin thinks her views must take precedence over all opposition. That's my whole point! Obviously, she would like it if her views were reflected in the law of the land. So would I and so would you.

I share your horror at religion, or any other belief set, aimed at "keeping women in their place." And lord knows (heh) there's a large movement out there that wants to do that. But I have yet to see evidence that Palin is one of that sort.

Let me put ask a different question. Do you believe that the sole reason anyone is opposed to abortion is because they believe in "keeping women in their place"?

I see two different anti-abortion motivations in this country. One is as you say, primarily interested in keeping women under the thumb of a patriarchal society, and heavily, heavily invested in controlling that very scary thing, women's sexuality. They're against abortion not so much because they believe life begins at conception, but because they want pregnancy to literally be a punishment for unauthorized sexual activity.

These people are also as a rule totally opposed to all forms of birth control except the "rhythm method." Condoms and the concept of "safer sex" particularly make them crazy because these fucks also like the idea of AIDS and less lethal STDs as a punishment for sex.

The red flag for when you're dealing with one of these bastards is their willingness to allow exceptions for rape and incest. Why? Because in their twisted minds, rape and incest aren't the "fault" of the pregnant woman, only voluntary sex is. That "compromise" is completely fuck-all phony and makes zero sense logically.

Then there's the other, much larger group of folks who genuinely believe life begins at conception. I know a number of those folks personally, a couple of them evangelicals, a couple not. Because they truly do believe it, they make no exception for rape or incest because a fetus is no less innocent because of the circumstances under which the sperm met the egg. That's an entirely logical position.

They also are perfectly OK with barrier methods of contraception. Because the people who hold these views are by nature conservative, they don't want their kids having premarital sex and don't want them being taught anything about sex in public schools or anywhere outside the home because they want to present the information to their children within the context of their own values. So they're for abstinence-only sex education.

The ones I know, at least, *do* teach their children about contraception and particularly condoms because they're smart enough to know that no matter what they tell them, the odds are pretty good they're going to go out and have sex before they're married and they don't want them to make babies, or get diseases, if they do.

I don't agree *at all* with these people, but I have to respect their views because they're heartfelt and coherent.

Palin appears, from the actual evidence available, to be among this latter group, not the former, and that's why I'm hugely skeptical of the portrait you paint of her.

Last thought, which may make you nuts. If I believed life began at conception, I'd be right out on the barricades, doing everything within my power to restrict abortion as much as possible. I'm rather baffled by people who believe that but don't push for anti-abortion laws. Nevertheless, they exist in large numbers. Somewhat ironically, in the days I was a thorough-going atheist and soaked in my superior rational-scientific worldview, I was quite troubled by abortion. It was only after I began to find a spiritual home in Eastern ideas about reincarnation and karma, etc., that I stopped worrying about it.

I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye, I'm only trying to understand where you're coming from.

"Loon" to me means specifically Christianist loon, people who use their religion to gain political power -- a practice that I believe that Jesus, assuming him to have been a historical figure, proscribed; see Matthew 6:1-5.

Christianity is, IMNSHO, "a very powerful and convincing mistake" (Philip Pullman) but being a Christian is not the same as being a Christianist.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"... Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.
...

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."" --

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...

Because it is an undeserved slur and defamation of a fine, upstanding creature that deserves better than being compared to the likes of Sarah Palin. From now on I will only refer to her as wack.

Those of you who have not grown up within a rigid evangelical religion may well not recognize the hint-nudge-wink communications, the innuendo and double meanings employed and the code-words used by these people to recognize one another and assure each other of their affinity. I did, and I do; so does dogemperor. Sarah Palin is attempting to be a stealth Dominionist. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

Sarah Palin, and her backers, would like you to believe that she holds secular law above her own beliefs and would never impose her will upon others. I say that is rubbish. There are many like her, in many walks of life, who have been guided and counseled and brought along softly, without a heavy footprint, so they could be advanced into positions of power as opportunity allows. Roberts and Alito are the leading edge of a wave of jurists that have been placed throughout the federal courts with the aim of seizing not just the Supreme Court but all of the appellate courts as well. Over the last three Republican presidencies, Reagan Bush and Bush, the civil service has been larded with graduates of Liberty College and Regency University and Messiah College who aren’t in the least competent at their jobs but can be relied upon to execute the Dominionist agenda not just without question but enthusiastically. Many others have been advanced in state and local government, on school boards and and water districts and every form of secular governance.

Sarah Palin is one of them. Do you really believe that someone with no political experience beyond mayor of a town of less than 10,000 could pull together a campaign for governor without substantial advice and support? Who provided that advice, who gave her that support? No one of good intent, I believe.

The nutjob evangelical Christianists recognize her. They see the affinity, they hear the code words, they are delighted that one of their own will sit a heartbeat away from the presidency and has a shot at the Big Job. They thought they had an in with GeeDubbya but he was more interested in his pathetic psychological warfare and lining the pockets of his rich compatriots. With Sarah Palin, they see the real deal.

What they are counting on from the Left, they are certainly getting. Well-intentioned but naive liberals will defend Palin from any attack that can be remotely interpreted as sexist. The drive amongst Liberals to see people as basically decent and to bend over backwards to be "fair" in the face of Palin’s pretense at aw-shucks-down-home charm will prevent the mounting of the same sort of character attacks that the Right routinely employs, and any questions about her religion fanaticism or how that might affect her decisions in governance will be deflected by her as unfair treatment and the deflections applauded and defended by the Left. Feminists, still smarting from the treatment of Hillary, will leap to defend Palin from any critique that can be twisted into even a hint of being demeaning. The kind of sharp elbows that a James Carville once would have routinely employed will be completely off-limits, forcing the Democrats to fight what is, like it or not, an exclusively personality-driven campaign with even more self-imposed restrictions than usual. It will be more important to some Progressives to be politically correct than to win the election, even though by losing the election they will end up losing everything they hold dear.

In this election the Right will attack your own strengths and use them against you, as they have been doing against progressives and moderates for the last 40 years. In defending Sarah Palin, who will if she is given the chance gut the Constitution with her evangelical fish knife and never bat an eye, who will sell you down the river with a smile and be pleased at doing God’s work in the process, you are participating in the same kind of passive self-deception and polite self-destruction that has given us a Supreme Court with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. She is far more dangerous than George Bush and Dick Cheney ever were.

It is the accepted terminology, but since it is clear you've given the matter a lot of thought we can step above common language and deal with subtle realities.

"Life" does not, on this planet anyway, have a "beginning"; it does not arise de novo but rather it is a continuum, with each living creature having its origin in another. In mammalian reproduction, even before conception both the egg and the sperm are fully alive. To say that the combination of two living entities crosses some metaphysical barrier and “new” life is created is nonsensical; life was already there, all along.

What is created is a new being, a unique physiological and psychological entity. The question you then might ask is: When does that entity begin existence as a "self", something distinct from that which was before?

At conception, and for some long time afterwards, the developing mass of cells does not even recognize itself as distinct from other creatures of its species. This is why stem cells can be taken from blastocysts and transplanted into others of the same species without rejection; the cells themselves are not differentiated in a way that makes them recognizable by the finely attuned immune system of a mature adult, nor do they recognize tissue from others as different from their own. Not until 8 to 12 weeks of gestation do T and B cells appear and organize, starting the process by which the body will eventually physiologically distinguish “self” from “non-self”. Is that the defining event?

At that early stage of fetal development, however, the neurological system is insufficiently developed to allow anything remotely resembling cognition. Brainstem functions have begun to control autonomic activities, but peripheral neurons are not developed so there can be no perception of otherness even if the forebrain were developed sufficiently to be able to process the signals. If the brain does not function at a sufficiently high level to allow recognition of self and otherness, is there a self present or is it still just a mass of cells? How would we ever know?

For millennia, the existence of a distinct self in the developing fetus was defined as the time of quickening, the first detected movements that can be felt by the mother any time from 13 to 25 weeks. Is such a broad range meaningful? What is it that occurs with this indistinct and difficult to assess event that could allow a distinction between not-self and self to be defined? The earliest movements are, it appears, completely random and result from uncontrolled firings of neurons that happen as part of the formation of neural networks. At what point do they become meaningful? When do they transition from random to deliberate? Is that a meaningful transition to “self”? How do we know when it has occurred?

Until about 21 weeks, a fetus has no chance of survival outside the womb. Even then chances are slim and depend on a number of other factors. At 22-25 weeks gestation, chance of survival is just 50/50 (and of those who survive, 80% at least will have a disability). If the fetus cannot survive without attachment to the mother, can it be said to exist as a separate self?

Further, what level of cognition is required for there to be “self”? Is an anencephalic fetus even at full term a “self”? What does it mean to be a person?

I don’t have any firm answers to these questions. The closer the fetus gets to viability, to the point when it can sustain outside the womb, the graver the questions become and the more unclear the answers are – for me. But because the questions themselves are not easily formed, and the answers therefore not easily obtained, I believe that it is no one’s right to demand that any other person be held to any other standard but their own. It is the woman’s decision, and it should remain that way.

Sarah Palin’s ethical construct, that even the product of a rape should be preserved and the unwillingly impregnated woman guilty of a sin if not a crime for terminating the pregnancy rather than facing daily, constant, nightmarish reminder of the horrific violation of her self for nine months, the trauma and risk of gestation and birth, the damage and alteration to her own body, for an abstract concept of when “life” begins is, in a word, wack and I would not want anyone that deranged in their thinking processes to be anywhere near the office of the presidency.

I actually already know all that. My own spiritual/religious convictions make the question of when "life" begins irrelevant, so my opposition to laws controlling abortion is on an entirely practical basis.

My argument was only that there are many honest people who have a heartfelt belief that "life" in any meaningful human sense begins at conception and that that belief does not automatically, as you appeared to be saying in your earlier post, correlate with an agenda of keeping women barefoot and pregnant for the vast majority of them.

You may think they're wrong about "life." They think you're wrong. Who's "right" is not an argument of any particular interest to me, except insofar as your argument might help persuade a handful of anti-abortion folks to lighten up, which is a Good Thing, IMO. Now what?

If you're going to argue that Palin is a dominionist loon (or wack, whatever), you need to come up with some evidence either in her statements or her actions. I've seen none so far, and seen plenty of evidence that she's not, but rather a garden-variety conservative Christian who's primarily interested in accomplishing a rather mixed governance agenda and not a social one.

OTOH, if you want to argue there's a danger she *might* be a dominionist because of her associations and what you interpret as some dog-whistles to that crowd, go for it. To me, that's a reasonable argument. I might not buy it, but I wouldn't object to it.

My objections have been restricted to the false statements being circulated all over the Internet and in some MSM about her public record on a whole range of issues, and to flat-out assertions of fact about things we do not know about her and really have no way of proving.

Seems to me there ought to be ample secular grounds on which to oppose her, no?

I thank you, truly from the bottom of my heart, for the compliment of confusing me with Sarah. She is a kind soul and will in her turn, I am sure, forgive you.

I was fairly certain you wouldn't differ with the bulk of what I said, it was just necessary to lay down the brickwork to support my conclusion. The net to all that I argued is that the thinking process supporting Palin's position regarding the continuation of a rape-induced pregnancy, however earnest and sincere, is flat out stupid, irrational, nonsensical, abusive, nasty, mean, disgusting and vile and I don't want anyone with that kind of logic deficit as VP or goddess forbid president or anywhere else in a position of any power within the federal government.

Honestly committed to wrong is not a positive attribute.

That's exactly what I did. I was thinking about Sarah and typed her instead of you.

My apologies.

That said, I agree with you entirely that "honestly committed to wrong is not a positive attribute." Right on.

Who was arguing that it was? Possibly you've also gotten your wires crossed and are thinking of some other post on some other blog?

"being earnest and honest in support of idiocy does not win any points with me."

Well, it does with me, or perhaps just loses fewer points. With earnest and honest, at least there's no fog about what you're fighting. The slippery and dishonest ones, like say, oh, Jerry Falwell or Dick Cheney or the like, are to me quite another matter and far, far more dangerous.

But just to get back to the original point that started this all off-- there are people who honestly believe "life" starts at conception without having a hidden agenda of keeping women barefoot and pregnant, as seemed to be argued in this thread above, and some of them even meet every other test of being feminist or pro-feminist.

"our Sarah is much more pleasant to contemplate than am I."

I noticed that. ;-)

and I thank you for making this clear, bringiton.

I was fairly certain you wouldn’t differ with the bulk of what I said, it was just necessary to lay down the brickwork to support my conclusion. The net to all that I argued is that the thinking process supporting Palin’s position regarding the continuation of a rape-induced pregnancy, however earnest and sincere, is flat out stupid, irrational, nonsensical, abusive, nasty, mean, disgusting and vile and I don’t want anyone with that kind of logic deficit as VP or goddess forbid president or anywhere else in a position of any power within the federal government.

Honestly committed to wrong is not a positive attribute.

Eight years of Bush hasn't made this nearly clear enough to many people, evidently.

Taking away the right to control what your body is put through against your will is not pro-life. It's a form of slavery, IMNVH and adamantine, unshakeable opinion, and it is a wrong that must not be left standing.