Sarah Palin’s connection to anti-semitic evangelicals: will the media ask tough questions about this? September 3, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion, bigotry, wingnuts.3 comments
Of course they won’t. And maybe they’re right to. Just because Palin attends a church that invites anti-semitic speakers to rant about how terrorist attacks in Palestine are God’s Judgment against Jews doesn’t mean she believes any such things. Not that the MSM cared about that when harping on Obama’s connection to Jeremiah Wright.
Then again, Palin’s not a Scary Secret Muslim Communist Vampire Lesbian like Obama, so a double standard is perfectly acceptable.
All the same, McCain better hope that the Jewish vote he’s counting on in Florida doesn’t start paying attention to Palin’s ties to people who say things like
Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It’s very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can’t miss it.
Given that Palin was in attendance for those remarks, it certainly seems that someone should ask her if she believes that terrorists attacks are God’s judgement on Jews–and whether she thinks Jews are condemned for rejecting Jesus. Those are completely legitimate questions to ask a candidate, and someone needs to ask them.
River Tam: not a “sad attempt at feminism” September 3, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in arts and culture, feminism.1 comment so far
In the midst of this otherwise good piece entitled “Hollywood’s 5 Saddest Attempts at Feminism,” (h/t to Ann) we find none other than Firefly/Serenity’s own River Tam:
Despite River’s inherent ass-kicking abilities, she rarely uses them to the benefit of the crew. The character has been driven insane by her experiences, and therefore she spends most of her time saying crazy things and throwing up in her brother’s bed.
In fact, protecting River forms the backbone of no less than five out of thirteen episodes, plus the theatrical movie. That’s an awful lot of rescuing for a feminist hero.
First of all, there’s absolutely no way that Joss Whedon meant her to be a feminist hero. As one of the Feministing commenters pointed out, his characters are about more than being archetypes, after all, and if we were forced to label one of the characters in Firefly as a feminist hero, it would no doubt be the cool, tough, smart and totally sexually empowered Zoe, not the abused and damaged River.
But that misses the bigger picture, which is that River’s story is about overcoming the damage that’s been done to her. While the crew does save her on more than one occasion, she also saves them repeatedly, against desperate odds–all while appearing to be a crazy, “helpless” woman. That’s pretty kick-ass, and I could think of many worse Hollywood role models for young women than River. River’s inner strength, along with the support of her friends, helps her overcome even the horrific violence of her past and save the day. If Joss Whedon has one consistent message it’s that the good gals and guys can win with dedication and devotion to each other. That seems pretty empowering to me.
Look, Hollywood has an abundance of terrible faux-feminist characters, and Joss Whedon has his own issues (less than stellar portrayals of people of color, for instance). But River Tam ain’t one of them.
PS: River’s a failed attempt at a Feminist hero, and Buffy is responsible for women abandoning the Church–seems poor Joss is being blamed for a lot these days!
PPS [And Buffy-related spoiler]:
Palin’s teenage daughter to give birth: which lines of attack are fair September 2, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in constiutional issues, reproductive rights, wingnuts.2 comments
As you no doubt know by now, presumptive Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant. She’ll keep the baby and marry the father.
I want to point out, first and foremost, that Melissa is absolutely right about the situation when she says
So, in my earlier CifA piece regarding the annoucement of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, I said:
If there’s any political point to be made here at all, it is about the very real possibility that the McCain campaign did not know about this pregnancy, despite reports to the contrary. There is a whole lot McCain evidently didn’t know about Palin – and there have been reports that McCain chose her for the ticket after a half-assed vetting, about which even Republicans outside of DC have been grumbling. But even that is predicated on the idea that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy is so scandalous as to warrant preclusion of a related politician on a national ticket.
And I stand by that wholly. I don’t think Bristol Palin’s pregnancy should be used as a political football against McCain [...]
Obama has already made the same point. Going after Palin’s daughter is offensive and way, way over the line.
That said, given McCain and Palin’s anti-choice stance, I think it’s completely acceptable and in fact essential that we call attention to the McCain campaign’s stance on the matter:
Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.
I’ll take them at their word on that. Bristl Palin is of course quite capable of making decisions about her own life and reproductive health. I’m pro-choice, and I support her in making that choice, whatever it is she chooses. But the McCain aides “clarification” also illustrates how out of touch with mainstream America McCain’s campaign is. As Ann notes,
I mean, John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t believe women have a right to choose. It’s absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol “made this decision,” and then push for policies that take away that choice.
In reality, Bristol’s actual “choice” was probably not whether to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term, but whether raise the child herself or put it up for adoption. But the reason that the McCain campaign chose to emphasize Bristol’s agency in this decision was to reassure the public that this pregnancy is not coercive.
The McCain campaign was in a tough spot. Obviously they had to reassure voters that they weren’t going to force Bristol Palin to give birth, but they had to do so while opposing reproductive choice (Palin appears to be against abortions even in the case of rape an incest). The McCain campaign, which supports forced childbirth for other people, sings a much different tune when explaining a personal matter to reporters.
And they do so because they know their real position is shockingly out of line with mainstream American politics. Very, very few people–even among so-called “pro lifers”–are truly in favor of forced childbirth in all circumstances, and most Americans support a woman’s right to choose. So extreme is the anti-choice base on choice that McCain aides need to reassure voters that they didn’t force Bristol Palin give birth, even while advocating that women be forced to give birth.
That’s hypocracy to an extreme degree, and it’s most certainly politically relevant. And it is time we called the McCain campaign out on this: why are they pro-choice when it comes to their own families, but anti-choice when it comes to everyone else’s?
