So, I've been a bit more than lackadaisical in my posting, but I haven't had much to say lately. You'd think with the life and death going on in the house (baby's birth, putting Cadet to sleep), heck even buying the house I'd have more to say, but I don't. Until today.
Once again it's politics that inspires me to write, but perhaps not what everyone is focusing on of late. I won't hide what I'm thinking, I'm planning to vote for Obama for so many reasons. But McCain's choice of a running mate fascinates me. I fear it may be more like a moth to a flame than anything else. As usual it takes someone else to point out the realities of the situation.
My co-worker, who had a bet with her husband that McCain would pick a woman, partly in an attempt to steal away disenfranchised female voters. Frankly, that makes no sense to me if they're even remotely voting on the issues, as Hiliary is well established on the "left" and Gov. Palin on the "right." I have no intention of changing my vote because Obama is / picked a male. My wife, probably rightly, felt that this selection was a desire to simply own the news cycle. For the female perspective look
here. The sad part of me wonders if Palin's daughter is part of this desire to own the cycle. For better or worse, it's geting people talking and dominating the news cycles. I say its sad because I hope that's not the reason, and its sad that there's that shred of doubt.
I'm also fascinated by the
possible scandal unfolding in Alaska: see
this for more info. I emphasize possible because (at the time of posting) this is not a sealed case, and it is honestly possible that there was no wrongdoing. It just seems risky to me to even choose someone with this possibility.
But for me the far more pressing issue is Palin's daughter's pregnancy. An appropriate link
here. Now this is not to pass judgement on parenting skills or her daughter's choices. What it does make me question is the policy choices of this ticket. It can best be summed up in the linked article:
"
If we want to talk about sex and politics, how about talking about whether or not the candidates defend comprehensive sex education, or favor abstinence-only sex education? Data has debunked the abstinence-only approach as wishful thinking.Texas, for example, which strongly endorses abstinence-only, and demands parental consent before teenagers can get contraception, leads the nation in its rate of teen pregnancies, dropping only by 19 percent from 1991 to 2004 while the rest of country dropped by over 30 percent. Meanwhile in California, where comprehensive sex-education is mandatory in public schools, the teen pregnancy rate dropped by 47 percent."
Without even getting into the merits of premarital sex (which is frankly a personal, moral choice NOT a political one), could this child have been prevented by comprehensive sex education? Honestly, we don't know if she knew about contraceptive techniques and chose to ignore them, or was unaware. I just feel every person should have all the tools
available to them.
This turn of events, more than the abortion issue, brings to the forefront the issue of comprehensive sex education. I wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Obama's nomination speech when he said: "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country." Again, we may never know if this case was a wanted or unwanted pregnancy, and I don't think the Governor's daughter should be made into a poster child for unwanted pregnancies (just like I believe she shouldn't be made into one for the pro-life crowd either). And I firmly agree with Obama as I heard him say this morning that candidate's family, especially children are off limits. It does raise the issue of sex ed, and I just think we should talk about it.
