Palin's Pseudo-Prophetic Proclamation

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/15/sarah-palin-email-message-written-as-though-from-god/

No, this isn’t about Palin’s politics, but I almost wish it was. This time, we have a letter she wrote to her family before her fifth son, Trig, who has Down’s syndrome, was born. He was the center of a bit of a spat over a year ago with Family Guy that I blogged on in “Palin Versus Peter, or How Family Guy Makes Fun of ‘Retards’ (Not Really)” . Palin and her daughter Bristol both claimed that the show was making light of Trig’s condition and also taking a stab at Palin when a character with Downs syndrome in the episode “Extra Large Medium” said her mom was the former governor of Alaska. Even if the butt of the joke was Palin, she took it too seriously. But this time, she’s taking a position of sorts that, even with the qualification that it’s based on her personal belief in God, might be crossing a bit of a line.

In the email to family members looking forward to Trig’s eventual birth, she explains that Trig will be different, as well as a challenge to his parents and siblings, but will also bring more joy into his family’s life because of his special attributes, being mentally disabled in a particular way. She then makes a point that I think we all could agree on: just because someone’s flawed in one way or another doesn’t mean they’re not valuable as a person. The straw that broke the camel’s back, however, is how she ends this. She had already indicated technically throughout the letter that this was from another perspective, not her own. That would’ve been a better angle on this, I think. She could’ve said that God told her this and we could’ve given her some leeway. But she ends the letter by signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” Of course, she doesn’t think she’s actually channeling God; I certainly hope not.

But even the mere presumption or appearance of talking from God’s perspective could be said to be a bit on the blasphemous side. Saying that God did all this planning about the birth of one baby suggests the same problems I observed with Rick Perry’s prayer celebration in “Idle Hands Are God’s Plaything”. When you think God cares this much about every event in your life, you’re giving yourself a bit too much entitlement in the eyes of a creator that’s supposed to treat everyone justly, fairly and impartially. That’s why God doesn’t usually spare believers when he throws a tornado through Joplin, Missouri. But then people start saying God was involved because a single church’s cross is saved. Pure coincidences are made to be the benevolent hand of the creator and even tragedies are accepted as God’s plan instead of supposedly the consequences of a sinful world, which is at least a simpler and more consistent explanation.

Palin’s problem here is not that she’s a Christian, since there are many Christians more than willing to believe such things like a snake originally had legs before it diversified from the common ancestor it shares with lizards today. Of course, they’ll jokingly reference the biblical story where the snake that tempted Eve is implied to have had legs which God then removed as punishment, forced to crawl on its belly and eat dust (not even getting into the second part, since it’s only a half-truth). Palin’s issue is a similar one to any theist that insists that God has an active part in human history. Faith healings, miraculous survivals or recoveries from cancer, the births of children, all these and more are prayed over and praised after the fact as God’s handiwork. No one’s saying you can’t be eager, happy, or just generally excited about things like a grandchild or sibling being born or grateful that the people you love have recovered from disease or survived a terrible event like a 400 mph funnel of wind that tears steel apart like tissue paper as it blows through their town. But, like many things, I think people are exaggerating what can be an already inspiring sort of occurrence.

The miraculous will happen, no doubt about that, but the nature of the miraculous is what is at issue here. When you view a child being born or see it soon afterwards as a newborn, you might be inclined to think of its birth as a miracle of sorts, but these days, a real miracle would be a child born premature surviving, which does happen. But if you take something more understandably amazing and unusual, like cancer going into remission suddenly, the miraculous nature is almost instinctively attributed to God or the power of prayer (or both). Just being grateful for the person’s healing is satisfactory enough for me, as a Buddhist. Many might call me ungrateful in that I’m not giving proper credit, but to be frank, I don’t see the hand of any divinity in such things, neither from a scientific/medical perspective or a more spiritual/philosophical one.

Things being unexpected or random do not imply a violation of the laws of nature or even some consistency through the perspective of a creator who sees everything. If such a show like House indicates anything, people’s diseases can have such a variety of etiologies (causes) that their sudden healing by a stroke of fortune in choosing a certain treatment is not anything related to the supernatural, but simply a part of the natural we don’t fully understand at the moment. Perhaps this is something we could agree to disagree on, but Palin just tends to emphasize these things in a way that makes other people look smart by comparison. But I live in the South where this sort of thing is probably pretty common as well, so I’m hardly being fair in criticizing a woman from the furthest north state in the U.S. who sounds like she’s from Canada sometimes. Concluding point being: while you might believe God works in mysterious ways, it seems all too convenient to have God’s mysterious ways work in your benefit more than in your suffering. Though of course, there is the recourse to the heaven option, so it’s not as if God’s completely absent when you feel such loss, but it’s not nearly as satisfying as saying, “Yep, God’s got my back,’ is it? Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

The GOP-Generally Odd Party

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/16/my-take-gop-presidential-field-jars-with-americans-self-image/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/16/huckabee-announcement-puts-evangelical-votes-up-for-grabs/

Neither Mike Huckabee nor Donald Trump are running for President of the U.S. in 2012. Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and others are in the stages of either forming an exploratory committee or working on campaigns across the country. But I wonder whether some of these candidates can stay relevant to their constituents. Newt Gingrich has been divorced three times, and Mitt Romney has become even more controversial than before by suggesting a form of healthcare many have claimed is similar to “Obamacare”, even terming it “Romneycare”. The Mormon Republican could have my vote, though there’s a stronger appeal from Ron Paul, who announced his plans to run this cycle. With these two problems alone, let alone pitfalls with other potential nominees, such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, the GOP seems to be falling behind with the times.

The main females with ambitions for presidency are appealing to Roy Moore’s methodology of pandering to the common people, aligning themselves with those values usually by design. Palin and Bachman are still popular with the Tea Party, notorious for comparisons and contrasts with the GOP, though even some Republicans running at present, such as Ron Paul, don’t necessarily agree with what might be called more neo-conservatives supporting the war in Iraq. The grassroots nature of how Palin and Bachman campaign, along with the popularity of their positions across a solid range of demographics means they might have a chance this time around, since Hilary Clinton had a decent run in 2008 for the Democratic party. Palin and Bachman share some common positions, such as opposing same sex marriage, advocating offshore drilling and general support of the war in Iraq. Any disagreements are slight, Palin opposing all abortion, while Bachman is willing to permit it in cases of rape or incest. Palin might have some conceivable difficulties due to her explicit association with the Tea Party she has, contrasting with Bachman’s incidental appeals to grassroots movements without severing her ties to the GOP. Palin also had the incident connected to Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting this year, so that’s not helping her chances. Ron Paul, ironically enough, also has some distinct connections with the Tea Party movement, though he still emulates a good deal of GOP positions, particularly the anti abortion one, though his strong opposition to the Federal Reserve System and more strict Constitutionalist leanings might clash more explicitly with the GOP’s move towards neo-conservative ideals.

Concerning Newt Gingrich, the most obvious critique is in his dissonance with the GOP focus on family values and marriage as a sacred institution. The man has been divorced three times, married twice, both times to the women he was cheating on the previous wife with; it doesn’t set the best example for fidelity. The flipside of his hypocrisy is his strong Catholic Christian background that creates a buffer against these criticisms by saying that he feels remorse and wants to set things right. I wonder if he said that the last two times he got in trouble for adultery, especially the first time when Bill Clinton was in Gingrich’s sights for the controversy of Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinski, hm? But with any incidents of infidelity, the Christian heritage and support within the Republican caucus means that as long as Newt or any other divorcee that’s remarried keeps apologizing, they’re not completely hopeless, though it doesn’t inspire confidence from a common voter as offenses pile up. It seems disingenuous to vote for people that clash with your values and think they’ll improve marriage when they can’t even maintain it themselves without letting their eyes and genitals wander from the one they betrothed themselves to. I’m not married myself, but I’d be hard pressed to screw up a relationship I put so much work into, especially since I’m so appealing to women as a provider (sarcasm much?), considering all I do is surf the net and type away various ramblings on my blog on a tri/bi/weekly basis.

And to conclude this range of candidates, we have Mitt Romney, who could have my votes if he does continue and I had to consider what Republican would be ideal if the Democratic ones all suck. Of course, I could just vote Independent, but let’s assume I go into the two-party system. Between Romney and Paul, however, the former’s too Mormon in his positions for me to take him seriously on GLBT issues, But Mormon support for Prop 8 should’ve tipped me off on that. He does have my support for his speaking against Islamaphobic discrimination, since they’re fast becoming the new group to hate in the 21st century. He has a general support for stem cell research, but is fiscally opposed to the government funding it, so there’s another strike against a plus. All in all, he’s hardly different from other candidates. The issue of trust he has with the American people and the Republican Party is no doubt due to his Mormon background, which Americans still have reservations about. Mormonism probably has tricky policies within their own church about one’s loyalty to the prophet and their proclamations, though since Romney is not himself a prophet or one of the 12 apostles right under him, it makes the situation less serious. Of course, people would still trust him more than they’d trust a candidate in his 70s or who was homosexual, even if he was celibate. It goes to show that people can ignore a great deal in politics as long as the person of interest squares with the overall party principles. It’s when they become the alleged RINO, Republican In Name Only, that people begin to accuse you of being a Democrat in disguise. Either way, the political field will always have uneven bumps on the horizon. A Mormon, a twice divorcee, at least 2 associates with the Tea Party and more to come in the future: this whole set of politicians and associated squabbles are why I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Palin Pathetically Pleads Persecution

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/palins-use-of-blood-libel-invokes-ancient-myth-about-jews/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/palin-criticized-for-using-blood-libel/


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/my-take-sarah-palins-bogus-persecution-complex/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4021/new_theory_for_tucson_tragedy:_blame_the_atheists/

I can’t say I’m surprised that Sarah Palin has gotten into my blog again after half a year of nothing since Christine O’Donnell took her place for inept female politicians (and there are adept ones, don’t misunderstand me). And now she’s painting herself into a corner with her ignorance on Jewish-Christian issues. In particular, she thinks the term “blood libel” can be separated from the history it has of Christians slaughtering Jews; since many thought that the Israelite descendants kidnapped and killed Christian children and used their blood for various occult rituals. Any appropriate use of the term would have to involve actual persecution of Jews. But Palin says she, a good Christian woman, is the target of a blood libel against her since she can’t admit she might be somewhat guilty in using decidedly gun heavy rhetoric in rallying Tea Party members to fight against big government, by any means necessary, I imagine. And this rhetoric persisted in using what appeared to be target signs on various politicians in Arizona, including Gabrielle Giffords, nearly killed by a shot to the head from Jared Lee Loughner, who killed at least 6 people in his rampage in Tucson. Some claim Palin’s use of the targets may have motivated Loughner to the act against Giffords by association the target with a gun and Palin’s own phrase that she throws around of “Don’t retreat, reload,”

There’s a tragic irony in this, since Giffords herself was a Reform Jew, so it’s like twisting the knife in her parent’s wounds. Saying you’re the victim of a “blood libel” from people accusing you of influencing a maniac to make an assassination attempt on a Jew is like a Christian using the term “witch hunt”, which I imagine might not be uncommon in some areas today even with Wicca becoming more popular (though Wiccans are NOT witches, I must clarify). The Anti Defamation League strongly objected to Palin’s use, along with scholars of religion, such as Stephen Prothero and Mary C. Boys, who concentrates on this area of religious studies. While it has become part of English parlance, not unlike the phrase witch hunt, to use “blood libel” with a meaning separate from its historical context of Christian anti Semitism; which I admit is a minority today, since it is popular in Christian circles now to pray for Israel and such; it seems unfair to Jews in some way to use that term in such a nonchalant fashion, as if the Jews have just forgotten it, like the Holocaust, or just silently accept that people will always indirectly use anti semitic phrases in new unrelated ways. The medieval paranoia that might have just been a cover for anti Semitism under the similar hysteria around vampires; the Jews allegedly used blood in their rituals, therefore in the medieval mindset, they were kin with vampires. Makes as much sense as any other conspiracy theory.

I don’t think anyone is going to outright criticize Palin for her attempt to defend herself against these accusations, which, while plausible on some level, seem no different from scapegoating that has happened throughout times of crisis, creating someone to be the one to take the blame and otherwise become a pariah. Palin’s rhetoric might have only been a slight factor alongside Jared Lee Loughner’s alleged favorite books, including Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He may very well have been unstable from the beginning and the outside environmental influences may have triggered what was already somewhat genetically predisposed. There’s little reason to place the blame completely on any one person for even triggering Loughner’s insanity or his behavior, since he might have been behaving in what he believed to be a rational course of action, even if everyone else around him would have thought otherwise. There’s a justified criticism of sorts by Democrats of Republicans, Tea Party supporters especially, of the ease with which the assassin got a weapon with which to commit his crime, since they’re all for gun rights being increased (right?). The fact that Jared Loughner had no previous mental health evaluations or even any significant crimes on his record eliminated any difficulties that would’ve been clues from the start that he was someone that probably should not have gotten a gun at all. His belief in conspiracy theories was one of many manifestations in recent years that he was unstable, though the reason he was never forcefully taken for evaluations was because his erratic and outright insane behavior was nonetheless regarded as not posing any direct danger to anyone else around him. He was expelled from community college for this behavior, only allowed back in if he got a certified examination demonstrating his sanity. Later on, the military rejected his application on the grounds that he was mentally unfit. I would think at this point the military might’ve suggested that Loughner get evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist, but again, by this point, he may’ve been so far gone that it didn’t register.

And one last irritant in this whole terrible incident are claims that Loughner’s actions were motivated by his alleged atheism. There are already issues with this, since his reading list varies from theistic to atheistic authors, Plato and Hitler both having theistic tendencies and Ayn Rand and Karl Marx atheists of one stripe or another. The picture showing what appeared to observers to be a shrine with a skull doesn’t seem to show anything of atheism, since an atheist wouldn’t probably feel any need to erect any kind of area of worship, since it would be unnecessary to make pleas to divinities to dole out rewards or punishments. Not to mention that, regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve in the divine, when you’re stark raving mad, I don’t think you’re going to rethink that existential question so quickly when you take a Glock and starting firing wildly into a crowd. It’s pretty clear that the individual is the primary agent of responsibility in committing a crime, but there’s always room for considering a secondary agent as responsible by negligence. If you suspect someone is a danger to others by their behavior and thought patterns as far as they indicate them and you don’t do anything about it, then one can say you are nearly as culpable on some level as the person who takes a box cutter to a stranger’s throat. All in all, the blame game everyone’s playing is a start, but with Palin’s particular term being used outside of actual Jewish persecution, it’s no wonder that she’s spiraling down into mediocrity both politically and culturally to the level of Michael Jackson still being used as the punch line. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Palin and Gingrich: Disinformation Duo

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/09/2263037.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_republicans_gingrich;_ylt=At7r5MxKnBUw_w5pWTEAMpis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJrN29vY2NhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA5L3VzX3JlcHVibGljYW5zX2dpbmdyaWNoBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl9tb3N0X3BvcHVsYXIEc2xrA2dpbmdyaWNob2JhbQ--

Both Sarah Palin, new and bright face for conservatives, and Newt Gingrich, senior conservative even older than Rush Limbaugh, have taken stabs at President Obama recently. Although with Palin it's hardly surprising as she has apparently taken a deal for a reality TV series as well, so it's clear she enjoys the spotlight she's put herself in. Her criticisms started with Obama's passing a bill limiting nuclear armaments in both the U.S. and Russia, in the form of a sarcastic pronunciation of nuclear (dunno how that's supposed to be funny except to her ill educated supporters). She also parodied Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan noting “yes we can – spread the wealth around” as if doing so is bad (though she seemed oddly unspecific about that; how is spreading the wealth to those in dire poverty a bad thing in contrast to being excessively generous?) and “yes we can –spend money that we don’t have,” suggesting that Obama’s spending is somehow a surprise when the government has spent money it hasn't had to some extent since we've had a deficit. She also used her oft used slogan regarding changing health care with a nice gun quip, "Don't retreat, reload," which contrary to her insistence that it is not a call for violence, would probably only be seen as such to Tea Party activists. Or has Mrs. Palin never heard of retreat as a tactical solution? Guess she only thinks brash heroism will save the country (lot of good that'll do). The conclusion of her speech came in the form of another encouragement for her to run for President in 2012. Ironically people were chanting her name, which reminds me of the very thing that had people worried with Obama's campaign. Chanting of a name, first or last, suggests to me that she's become a cult figure. And contrary to her other claim that she is not seeking to be the leader of the Tea Party movement, her persistent presence and people's clinging to her as an authority figure is cementing her place within the upper echelon of the grassroots movement becoming a potential (potentially dangerous) third party.

Gingrich was more specific and generalizing in his critique of Obama, saying he was "radical", "socialist" and surprisingly "secularist". Radical change is something the U.S. adjusts to well enough in my limited observation. Not to mention said change comes through the electoral process he supports no doubt (so why complain?). The socialist accusation is nothing surprising, though I have to wonder what his alternative would be in solving problems of poverty if not through some use of money or distribution thereof. And his claim that the GOP is not afraid to speak on issues of faith in contrast to the Democrats seems misguided as well, unless Mr. Gingrich suggests that Obama hosting a Seder in the White House is not recognizing faith in the midst of politics. Unless Gingrich is an (gasp) anti-semite of some stripe. Not making any accusations, though Gingrich is retirement age (a couple of years past 65) so who knows if he is in touch with how religiosity or “Jewishness” is expressed in the 21st century. And from the article's observations, Gingrich seems to be with Palin in mobilizing intent for Republican presidential candidacy in 2012. Newt is more decidedly aligned with the GOP than Palin, though both of them are contenders for the future nomination that will take place in nigh 2 years. All things considered, this is a cause for concern to me at least. And who knows how John McCain will fare if he runs for Republican nomination as well? I’ve gotten the feeling through some conversations that many Republicans (particularly Tea Party supporters) don't like his policies very much. Anyway, that's my attempt at delving into political issues, so until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

Palin Versus Peter, or How Family Guy Makes Fun of "Retards" (Not Really)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_on_en_tv/us_palin_family_guy

After having gotten up surprisingly early and checking Yahoo News as is something of a religious habit, I noticed Sarah Palin has been hogging the spotlight again. In this case, it may last longer than when David Letterman made a joke about her daughter Bristol, since this has more relevance (and I use that loosely) to her youngest son, Trig.

A Family Guy episode, Extra Large Medium has a subplot where Chris, after having survived with Stewie in the wilderness for almost 4 days (gasp!), decides to get up the courage to ask a girl in his math class out on a date. It just so happens that Ellen, the girl in question, has Down Syndrome, although I'm skeptical of that. Her portrayal starts out innocent enough, but then she takes a drastic turn towards outright bitch. She constantly derides Chris for not reading her mind and doing all these things during the date to pamper and otherwise treat her like a queen (pulling out her chair is one thing, but giving her a freaking shoulder massage; this is a date, not a spa visit). And at the end of it all, she is indistinguishable from a selfish whining brat who just wants people to treat her differently because she has "special needs" (and apparently make her an ice cream sundae at the end of a probably expensive date at a fancy restaurant).

And Chris' point seems to stand strongly against Palin's apparent desire to make her son so "special" that anyone else is not even close to his level. As he put it, they're the same as everyone else (though admittedly he uses stronger words, which I'll choose not to use, since I like to limit myself to “curse words” in my blog). Overall, the offensive nature of this episode seems excessively overstated by Palin, since the only thing that has any tinge of a personal insult is quoted in the Yahoo News article. That is, Ellen notes that her father is an accountant (which last I checked, Palin's husband isn't) and her mom is the former governor of Alaska (which while Palin fits that description, I imagine that she isn't the first former governor of Alaska).
Stewie, as per his musical character, does have a song that would appear to have some amount of offensive references towards the mentally handicapped, but his overall tone suggests that she is a good person, even if she has flaws that he brings up. The last lines before he concludes the song with its title "Down Syndrome Girl" are indeed "happiness and joy creating", which I imagine Palin can agree her son and all her children are examples of.

To say that this is the first time Family Guy has made jokes regarding the "retarded" is to be too lazy to make even a short Google search. The episode Petarded brings up that Peter Griffin, the main star, is special needs himself. Though admittedly, Palin hadn't had Trig at that point, so she couldn't make such a stand that she's supporting the rights of the mentally disabled. And I doubt she'd care about a joke towards Grimace from McDonald's franchise being "Ronald's retarded (or in some edits) autistic friend". And any jokes regarding a retarded horse would be least in her horizon of defending the human children with special needs.

My biggest gripe overall would be why Palin takes it upon herself to try to protect her son and all such people affected by Down syndrome by association. Considering there are plenty of organizations that do the same thing and make a similar effort to confront issues of people misusing or otherwise using the term "retarded" or "retard" in a context that is less than hospitable and benevolent to the special needs community. Though from what I recall, she didn't make a gripe about Rush Limbaugh calling "liberals" the same term that she had a problem with Rahm Emanuel using in what was apparently a not-so-closed strategy meeting over healthcare. But her political issues would be another thing entirely that I don't feel entitled to speak on.

Overall, I would think that like Focus on the Family, maybe Sarah Palin could deal with a secondary "kick in the gut" and align herself with Special Olympics or the Burton Blatt Institute in Syracuse University in order to promote what I find to be an otherwise respectable agenda. But if she uses her son as the only motivation to advance the rights and standing of the mentally handicapped, then she almost doesn't deserve to paint herself as a defender of the community at large. But she wouldn't be the only parent to overestimate how "special" her child is. She just has a failsafe to fall back on that few people would call her on initially. Because no one would bring up hypocrisy in a person who has a child that has Down Syndrome, oh no... That's just not right. But seriously, this is Sarah Palin, she's just digging herself into a bigger hole by the day.