Palin Thoughts

Did she bother to practice this speech?

Sarcastro, are people supposed to tell when and where their kids are being deployed?  That seems weird to me.

She’s got the Bill Frist look of terror where her mouth is smiling but her eyes are all “Oh my god!  This is crazy.”

It tickles me to watch the Republicans clapping for progress for women.  When did that happen?

Why are folks waving “We love Cindy” signs?

Okay, America, let’s have a brief talk about whether it’s wise for Palin to continue to harp on her “small town” roots.  Those of us who grew up in small towns, who are watching her, know her.  We recognize her.  And I’ve got to guess it’s going to be 50/50 if they’ll vote for her.  She’d better hit hard that Obama is worse than her, because the longer I listen to her, the more I think she’s the woman the other women are rolling our eyes about in the kitchen when we think she’s not looking.

But I get it.  This is “Mrs. Palin goes to Washington.”

And I find her kind of terrified look kind of charming.  I mean, she should be terrified, if she gets the magnitude of what she’s about to embark on.

Didn’t she take the money from the Bridge to Nowhere?  Don’t the people who wrote her speech know that?

Oh, that silly Constitution.

Here’s the problem Palin has–the straight out fundimental problem–the longer she talks, the more I can believe that she’d ban books.  This speech has indeed made me feel like I know her better, but I have to say, if they make her the attack dog–which is clearly the role she’s taking in this speech, look at her talking about how she’s a hockey mom and the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick–how can they they turn around and ask the media to lay off her?

It’s really empty to the left of her, there, isn’t it?

No, I take that back.  There may just be some weird seat set-up.

Hey, did you hear that John McCain was a POW?

I see, though, that she neglected to mention that McCain was tortured.

Ha, sorry.  I think I accidentally channelled Andrew Sullivan there.

Holy shit.  She just said that John McCain went through torturous interrogations.  So, are we now acknowledging that those actions constitute torture?

If you want change, vote for McCain?  So, don’t vote for the one guy advocating change, vote for the other guy advocating change?  It’s a weird political season my friends.  And I’m just not sure how that speech served her.  It didn’t make me feel like she was the person who should be second in line for the Presidency.  I mean, I can completely see how she’ll be a good advocate for McCain, but will undecided people watch that speech and think “Okay, she could run this country?”

I’m just not sure.

As for everyone who predicted that the media would fall all over her, I think that’s right.

But the tone was strange.

My Daily Post on Palin

You know, I’ve decided that hearing about Sarah Palin’s “admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby” is just grating.

In the grand scheme of things, it might be admirable for a woman who could have chosen to abort her pregnancy to go ahead and give birth to a child with Down Syndrome.  But Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in abortion under any circumstances–not rape not incest, not life of the mother.  So, she didn’t deliberately choose to have that baby; having any baby you find yourself pregnant with is her default position.  So, she didn’t actually decide to have that baby.  And since she didn’t decide to have him, it can’t be an admirable decision.

It’s interesting to me, though, because it points to a weird ambivalence towards abortion (and not just on the right).  Folks think it’s wrong, but interestingly enough, they seem to think it’s the wrong choice. That it is indeed an option and an option even folks opposed to abortion might take, and as such, they should be celebrated when they don’t take it.

This, I would think, should be a problem for the anti-abortion folks, in that they can’t quite move away from the rhetoric of choice.

Blogher Nashville

Well, I’ve signed up for Blogher Nashville and I have mixed feelings.  But I’m going precisely because I have mixed feelings.  The thing I like about Tiny Cat Pants most is that it is just me sitting here chugging along doing what I’m doing.  But the thing that continues to frustrate me is that sometimes I suspect that just chugging along doing what I’m doing the way I’m doing it might be hampering the things I care about.

I mean, I write what I can about social justice issues that are dear to me, stories I think are important.  And I can’t help but think that, if only some of the bigger bloggers read me, they would also care about these issues and bring them to the national attention they deserve.  But I feel like I am not quite sure how to do that.  Especially because, while I don’t mind emailing folks I know (or, in terms of online stuff, folks I feel like I know) and trying to rally them, I have a hard enough time making the leap from reader to commenter, let alone from commenter to self-promoter.

I read about all these folks attending Blogher and I’m jealous because they sure do look like they’re having a good time, but I’m also frustrated because I know that meeting each other and making those connections matters.  If you want to be heard, people have to know to listen to you.

But I also am wary of all that.  I don’t like the behind the scenes machinations.  I feel like I’ve stepped in it good a few times over the years because there are secret email lists and strategic alliances and all this crap that I don’t know about and don’t participate in.

And I don’t know.  Is this “participating” in something like that?

When you start to strategize, does it ruin it?  Or maybe there are just some things I do inherently–strategies I embark on without being conscious of it–that I should cut other people slack for if they need to talk it out.

I don’t know.

I have issues.

But I’m going.

Stacey Campfield, Put Up or Shut Up

Stacey Campfield says:

OK, they make some good points. But while they mention a small segment of people who oppose vaccines for religious reasons or personal reasons (such as the fear of a possible link to autism) they fail to mention the largest segment of un immunized children.

The children of illegal aliens.

The children of illegals are the only group not required to provide proof of immunization or get an exemption based on religious or personal grounds. They just walk on in and get to go to class.

The State Law says:

No children shall be permitted to attend any public school, nursery school, kindergarten, preschool or child care facility until proof of immunization is given the admissions officer of the school, nursery school, kindergarten, preschool or child care facility except as provided in subsection (b) [This is from Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 50–General Provisions, subsection (b) refered to in here is the religious exception.]

According to State Law, the only kids who don’t have to be immunized are kids whose parents don’t believe in it for religious reasons and kids who have medical conditions under which immunizing them might further compromise their health.  They are required to have notes from their doctors.

This stuff Campfield claims?  That the children of illegal immigrants are allowed to go to school without proper immunizations?  It’s utter bullshit.  Nowhere in the state law that I could find is that allowed.  If you want to go to school here you have to be immunized.  Period.  If Campfield has access to some other statutes that I’ve overlooked, I invite him to share those with the world.  If he knows of schools who are letting any children attend class without proper immunization, he, as a state congressperson is morally obliged to tell the authorities and let other parents know that the schools are breaking the laws.

But if he’s just spreading this racist trope that illegal immigrants are dirty and carry diseases without even bothering to do the cursory internet searches required to see if what he’s saying is even true, then carry on you evil jerk, carry on.

Oh, I know some of you are just about to say “Oh, well, it could be happening.”  I would ask you to consider statute 49-6-5001-d–“Each child attending any school, nursery school, kindergarten, preschool or child care facility without furnishing proof of immunization or exception under subsection (b) and/or (e), shall not be counted in the average daily attendance of students for the distribution of state school funds.”

And then I would ask you this: If schools cannot get money for students who are otherwise able to be immunized if they are not, why would those schools let those children attend?

Explain that to me, Campfield.  What, exactly, are these schools’ motivations for letting these unimmunized children in?  They’re not legally required to and it hurts them financially.

So, do you know of this actually happening or are you just making stuff up?

Having a Garage Door Opener Changes a Person

Suddenly, I feel like I should be driving an Oldsmobile and smoking cigarillos while listening to classical music and drinking a martini.  I should have full skirts and pearls.

I should at least be driving up and down the streets of my neighborhood seeing if I can make other people’s garage doors open and shut with my remote.

I’m going to be one of those people with a tennis ball hanging from the garage ceiling.  At least until the dog spots it, I guess.

I need to get my utilities switched over and find an electrician.  I’m glad Mack insisted I make a list ahead of time of all the stuff that needs to be done because right now I’m all just like “We’ll get the utilities switched over and get an electrician in and paint and plant a magnolia (after discovering where the septic tank is) and move in and live happily ever after.”  I thought I’d feel all “Holy shit there’s so much to do and so little time to do it in.”

But no, I’m all “All right.  Who wants to try out my garage door opener?”