An executive from another network was kibitzing in the back as we filmed and they were talking about Sarah Palin and her son Trig. They did not have nice things to say. They were behind the rack so they forgot I was there and showed what they really thought. And who they really are.
In life if you are going to talk the talk then you need to walk the walk. You can't play the super concerned politically correct guy and then talk like that behind the curtain.
It was just like when Palin was a candidate. These people all pretend that they are one way and then they attacked the poor kid and his mother. They claimed he was not her son and that she had to prove that she actually gave birth to him. I thought that was as bad as it could be.
But it can get worse.
I think you will love this episode. You will see the little girl in the back playing dress up with my daughter and my cousin and having a great time trying on accesories and helping Lisa dress her Mom. It was magic.
It will be the best episode we have done so far.
55 comments:
I made my living exposing the lies and hypocrisy of people. After decades it made me somewhat jaded. But, I always remind myhself people will surprise you..good and bad.
I hear you brother.
But most of the time you can shine on the assholes and get on with your life.
But if they are techincally in charge and you have to listen to them there is not much you can do.
Except grip the leg of the desk so tightly that you break it off and it splinters into twenty pieces.
Just sayn'
We are being tested by how we treat the "least of these." Those bastards will be so low in Hell, they'll have to look up to see the Kennedys.
It makes me sick how they treated Palin. I do not care for Barack Obama's policies. I would never say anything about Obama's kids (as some sort of personal attack). I do not bad mouth Bill Clinton's daughter. It is not appropriate.
I could care less who Andrew Sullivan fucks (in his personal life). But he showed his true character when he went after Palin. He is a fucking creep for what he did.
Penn Jillette said in this clip that Crack had today: There are good people and bad people, but it take religion to make good people do bad things... Of course many liberals are the most fundamentalists going and Gaia save you if you get sideways with their faith.
Hey man - Thanks. I have a (now 56 year old) learning disabled sister for whom I have some responsibility.
It's frustrating as hell sometimes to deal with the fact that the wiring is wrong, and no matter how often the lesson is repeated, the wiring won't ever connect properly.
But we do it because there's a soul in there, a regular soul just like everyone else has. That's why life is valuable and valued, no matter the outward appearance.
Break it off and jam it into their neck - that would work.
Of course they have a soul. Believe it or not this liberal believes life begins at conception and is given a soul at that moment. There is a reason that these souls were sent to earth IMO. As far as abortion goes, my opinion is that it's between the the mother and the Creator to figure out when the time comes.
I don't expect anybody to believe in what I believe. I'm no Fundamentalist or Evangelical, but they have a right to their own belief system. Crack is an atheist, correct? He has a right to his non belief, but to project some sort of Fundamentalism onto liberals is crazy.
I feel the need to rant. Apologies in advance.
This whole Obama attack on people of faith, bypassing the Bill of Rights to require abortion services and birth control pills and rubbers are included in the health insurance policies provided by religious orders and people of conscience makes me scream.
It is the federal government as a pervert, as a pedophile, as an anti-theologist, or more likely, pushing the theology of socialism.
Liberal women fall for this nonsense. At the same time, their political philosophy allows for the objectification of women while they decry the objectification of women.
Dress your daughter like a high-school slut? No problem, it's her self-expression.
Teach kids about abstinence as part of sex ed in school? Never! That's for neanderthal fundamentalists!
Teach them to fuck in every way possible, beginning at age 15. Sure thing! Make private birth control services available without parental notification? Hell, yes!
Is it any wonder that teen and college age girls feel worthless? They are no longer (most of them) valued for their innate humanity, just for their sexuality. What a horrible emptiness that breeds.
Rant off.
And really...if you need to get your diaphram, bc pills, IUD and condoms from the federal government...what kind of effing daddy issues do you have?
I don't know of any of my liberal women friends who believe it is self expression in allowing girls to dress like sluts in high school. It welcomes inappropriate attention from males that girls that age aren't equipped to deal with.
As far as teaching abstinence as PART of a Sex Ed class, sure why not? BUT abstinence during hormonal youth isn't realistic. I grew up in a Fundamentalist Evangelical church. I remember several couples having to go in front of the Congregation to apologize because the girl got pregnant.
@MHaz--A fine rant, but for me there's one additional layer of madness: claiming that the people opposed to this policy are trying to deny women "access to contraceptives."
I honestly can't tell whether the people saying that really believe it--in which case they're stupid beyond belief--or they expect the rest of us to believe it, in which case they're insulting beyond belief.
Allie - in November of 2011 Gov Walker signed into law a bill that reversed the prohibition of teaching abstinence in public schools. Such teaching had been prohibited by a law signed by then-Gov Jim Doyle at the behest of Planned Parenthood.
You have nice friends. I can tell you from my wife'e experience as an HS teacher for more than 35 years that their are moms who believe their daughters' have a right to dress provocatively at school, and have hired lawyers to press their case.
Well Michael, those women are idiots.
As you know I live in Waukesha County, we may even know some of the same people. I am thinking of a very conservative couple, very nice folks, church goers, concerned parents.
One day at the lake they came to visit, they have a gorgeous 13 year old that looks like an 18 year old. She was in the skimpiest of bikinis and was such an innocent that she didn't realize how uncomfortable she was making all the men and even the women there. When they left everyone was so relieved.
It's simply poor judgment on the part of any parent, on either side of the political divide.
Allie - I won't guess which HS you live near, but I'll bet that it has a "dance team" whose purpose is to simply shake and flaunt titties and butts at the boys and men in the crowd.
Objectifying.
Cute HS girls with school sanction acting like stripper wannabees in front of the grandstands.
Okay, enough ranting. Off to bed.
BUT abstinence during hormonal youth isn't realistic.
Sorry, I may be showing my age, but abstinence WAS considered realistic in my youth.
And I grew up in Southern California in the 60's. But, then again, I graduated from high school in '65, and not, say, '68 or '69, by which time sex, drugs and rock 'n roll had burrowed even more deeply into the youth of the land.
Ever seen "American Graffiti?" That movie is an amazingly precise portrait of my high school years. Same setting, same cars, same people. And despite a fair bit of grappling in the back seats of '55 Chevys, we weren't really fucking like rabbits, unlike later generations of, say, Ridgemont High students.
"Going all the way" in high school was still pretty outré back then. It was a big deal when we learned that Kathy O. and Ann whats-her-name's brother had gotten it on. The story was passed around. Wow! They actually had sex!
And it didn't prevent my first love, Sue H., from getting knocked up and going to live with her "Aunt" for a while in her senior year. She did make it back for graduation, rather slimmer than when she had left. My faith in the fair sex was shattered irretrievably. Last I saw of her, a few weeks after graduation, she was pushing a baby carriage outside Perris Hill Park.
A few short years later, all the Boomer women who would barely kiss you in high school were, in fact, fucking like rabbits.
Oh, yes they were :->
Despite all that, the moral strictures of the years before the Summer of Love remain fresh in my mind. I can remember a time when it WAS expected that kids could control themselves. Yes, there were failures (Oh, Sue, how could you?), but the expectation was pervasive, and even us kids, randy as 16-year-olds ever were, had pretty much taken it on board.
We threw it over, big time, in '68.
But, as an old fart parent of teenagers, I'm seeing a lot more of a mature, sober, realistic, self-controlled attitude on the part of the current crop of 'Millennials' than we ever had. If ever a crew was ripe for a little more caution from the older generation, this one is. Unfortunately, the 'older generation' is usually one that can't remember a time when NOT fucking was considered normal, and herpes, chlamydia, and the clap, were not near-childhood diseases.
Fortunately, growing up in pinched times, our boys know the price that may have to be paid for thoughtless sex. And, having their eyes firmly on economic survival, they know how to keep it in their pants.
And THAT, more than any moralizing, may be the best lesson for this current, cold and cautious generation.
Stuff the manipulators, liars and rentseekers...a song for your enjoyment. (h/t Sippan)
BUT abstinence during hormonal youth isn't realistic.
And yet...
Millions of nerdy boys do it. Not by choice, of course.
But they do.
The sexual free-for-all creates de facto polygamous relationships, gets the girls used to being used by the few popular guys.
Great system.
...abstinence during hormonal youth isn't realistic.
I was a virgin on my wedding night at 21. I dated my wife five years, so it's realistic. Expecting people to tell the truth is as unrealistic. Expecting people not to steal is unrealistic. Expecting politicians to be honorable is unrealistic. Why is it that abstinence is the issue that people want to give hormonal teenagers a pass on?
A moral conscience and self-restraint is one of the things that separates us from the animals. You can't beat a dog hard enough to stop it from humping your leg, but you can inform humans that certain behavior is unhealthy/ungodly/uncouth/unnatural/tits/seeing if you're still paying attention/that's all, and they have the capacity to refrain from that behavior.
I have to agree with TTBurnett. I graduated in 1964. When I got out of the Army in 1968 it was nothing to have one girl friend after another that were willing to have sex.
Something else that I've noticed from back then: the length of girl's hair. I went to a bar last December and met up with about 20 people I went to high school with. Looking at the pictures of girls in high school then, none of them had long straight hair. That long unset hair was the rage by 1967.
What's up with that?
I'm not giving teens a pass and saying have at it. I'm saying that history bares out the fact that abstinence only as a form of birth control fails miserably time after time.
Moralizing won't change the nature of human sexuality. The chastity belt was all the rage in mid evil times, dontcha know?
As I said earlier , even in the Fundamentalist Evangelical church I grew up in, couples had to hurry and wed quickly because the girl was pregnant. They would be made to stand in front of the church and apologize to the Congregation. This humiliation obviously didn't stop a next couple from having to do the same thing thing a year or two later.
It was taught that sex before marriage was a sin and abstinence was expected, no demanded by God himself!
Did it stop the young couple? No.
So far there are all male opinions here, I would love to hear what some females have to say on this subject. I kind of feel like I'm at the hearings on birth control, with an all male panel.
Allen, maybe when girls grow their hair long it makes them crazy sex fiends.
...history bares out the fact that abstinence only as a form of birth control fails miserably time after time.
That stale, false slogan works in liberal circles, but not in the real world. Someone who chooses to have sex no longer is practicing abstinence, so it isn't abstinence that failed. Your logic would also demand that sobriety fails every time, so why bother to tell drunks not to drink and drive? Instead, we should offer free taxi rides home, free nights at hotels near their watering hole, or any of a hundred other ways to avoid the consequences of their behavior?
How about shoplifting? Let's suppose that a high school principal calls an assembly of its student body and informs them that the nearby grocery store has complained that the students are shoplifting from the store on their lunch hour. The right thing is to instruct them not to steal. The liberal position is to tell them not to steal as the principal rolls his eyes, then proceeds to instruct them in the finer points of shoplifting: wear a coat, work in pairs, create a diversion, run fast, etc.
That's a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives expect responsibility from people. Liberals demand we accommodate poor choices and bad behavior.
It's the EXPECTATION that humans will be abstain from premarital sex that fails. Not abstinence itself. That is what is unrealistic, the expectation.
That's not what you said.
The fact that humans CAN is a far cry from the fact that humans DON'T. It really demonstrates that liberals are the pessimists and the conservatives are the optimists. Your expectations reveal your core attitude.
Sex cannot be compared the the crime of shoplifting, in shoplifting the culprit gets slapped on the hand and is let go. In an unwanted pregnancy there are life and death choices that need to be made.
Bring a life into the world with often far less than ideal circumstances , or abort the child, or give the child up for adoption, all three choices could have been avoided with facing the reality that the EXPECTATION of abstinence will fail, has failed and will continue to fail.
My own three daughters had no abortions, no unwanted children, finished high school and college, and one went to law school, thank goodness they felt they could come to me to help them obtain birth control when they were in a relationship that got too serious too young. Was I unhappy about it? Yes. Did I tell them I was hoping they would abstain? Yes. Did I realize that they would do what they wanted when I wasn't there? Yes. Did I tell them I wouldn't help them? No.
But I am an immoral liberal, what do I know? Carry on.
Everything's relative. Typical liberal stance.
We're talking about actions and consequences and the human capacity to make good choices. That you cannot reconcile facts and feelings isn't my fault. If you feel like an immoral liberal, that's your reaction, not my accusation.
No I don't really feel like I am an immoral person. I feel like I live in a world that requires realistic expectations. We will never see eye to eye on what is realistic and rational, but I'm glad we can discuss it here and not get too personal.
It always boils down to how we see the world, nothing is an absolute. You are incorrect that the liberal viewpoint is pessimistic, realistic and pessimistic are two different things.
Full circle.
One more thought on being a liberal.
Even some conservatives don't embrace abstinence only Sex Ed. I use my daughter and son in law as an example once again, they are staunch fiscal conservatives, yet socially liberal. I'm curious, what are they? Liberal or Conservative?
I've heard my son in law poke fun at the Religous Right and express frustration at the influence it's had on Conservatism. His brand of conservatism is concerned strictly with money. Is he not a true conservative?
What is Althouse? I guarantee she thinks abstinence only Sex Ed is unrealistic. I suspect that it isn't only liberals that see this issue this way.
We can agree on the title of this thread: "God bless the little children."
If you throw in libertarianism, it really clouds things up. My son declared himself to be so about six months back. He lives up to it, too. I have to admit I'm strongly of that mindset, although conservatism veins run deep. I'm for the end to the drug war, I'm okay with prostitution, and I favor ending most entitlements programs. I daresay that most of my fellow congregants would label me a witch and have me burned at the stake for my viewpoints.
My first choice for President this year was Gary Johnson. He ran in the GOP race, then switched to the Libertarian Party.
I don't know which pigeonhole fits me, either.
Not to pile on Allie (woo!) but I think her statements reflect another major aspect of the liberal mindset: Other people cannot be expected to control themselves. In politics this takes the form of Other people can't be expected to be able to exchange anything of value to make money (welfare), or feed themselves (food stamps), or control their libido (sex education/abortion) or get a photo ID (voter ID laws).
Etc.
Wouldn't it have been nice, though, Allie, if society had been willing to back you up as far as keeping your daughters chaste? As it would have any previous time in the past 400 years of American society?
Fortunately, it all worked out, as it usually does, in no small part I'm sure because you were supportive. But it doesn't for a lot of people.
The idea that "abstinence doesn't work" because people failed at it echoes the rallying cry of "hypocrite!" that Alinsky-ites are so fond of. Without a doubt there was much less extramarital sex when society disapproved strongly of it.
Not that there still wasn't a lot of it, of course. Lots more than anyone would admit at the time.
But you don't need 100% to be worthwhile.
...abstinence during hormonal youth isn't realistic.
Of course it is IF the consequences of non-abstinence are a factor.
It is precisely because that the consequences of sex have been erased in society through birth control and government substituting itself as the provider in the form of welfare and never ending government handouts, that we have a society that doesn't value sex and marriage.
When you avoid the consequences of actions, good OR bad, the actions have no meaning.
Our society is a hollow shell and we are raising our children to have no values.
Blake, am I understanding you correctly? Do you feel society has a supporting role in ones personal choices? That sounds kind of liberal to me. I like it.
Keeping my daughters "chaste", interesting. What if one doesn't adhere to a belief system that believes chastity is absolutely nesessary to be a moral person?
What if morality is based on doing what is kind and loving and decent, instead of theology? Would an otherwise moral person be considered immoral if they believed pre marital sex in certain circumstances was not wrong?
Can a person be moral without religion?
Must sex outside of marriage have consequences in adult people? Or are the consequences meant only for teens? They should become pregnant, yep that will teach em?
Avoiding a pregnancy is teaching a teen a wrong lesson, even though its obvious that the parents instructions that they remain chaste wasnt obeyed?
Is sex outside of marriage wrong unless there are consequences? I'm not married as you all know, I can no longer get pregnant at my age. Is it wrong for me to take a lover, or a friend with benefits? What are the consequences to me having a sex life? Will I go to hell?
Blake, am I understanding you correctly? Do you feel society has a supporting role in ones personal choices? That sounds kind of liberal to me. I like it.
It's about the most conservative thing imaginable, since every society from the beginning of time has made demands on the individual. Indeed, that's what society is.
Where liberals get confused is thinking "state = society". It doesn't. A separation of the two is as necessary as the separation of church and state.
Keeping my daughters "chaste", interesting. What if one doesn't adhere to a belief system that believes chastity is absolutely nesessary to be a moral person?
You said you were unhappy about it: Did that mean something other than a desire to keep them (relatively) chaste.
If you felt there was no connection between chastity and morality, you wouldn't have been unhappy about it.
We don't need to deal in absolutes.
What if morality is based on doing what is kind and loving and decent, instead of theology?
There are many moral codes that are not based on theology. Some are based on being kind and loving and decent. Some are not.
Would an otherwise moral person be considered immoral if they believed pre marital sex in certain circumstances was not wrong?
Considered by whom?
Can a person be moral without religion?
A person can be. A people? It doesn't appear so.
Must sex outside of marriage have consequences in adult people? Or are the consequences meant only for teens? They should become pregnant, yep that will teach em?
You seem to speak of consequences in terms of the ill thoughts of others and punishment. Suggesting you don't understand the basis of morality.
Morality is the group's codified experience.
People eat pork and die of trichinosis and the society says "Do not eat pork". And those who eat pork are punished.
You might say, "Why? If eating pork is bad, they'll be punished anyway!" But it's not that eating pork is bad per se, it's that eating it as a practice is bad.
And the individual who breaks the moral code and suffers no consequence from the act, does suffer from the violation. (Because, as members of a group, we agree to abide by its rules.)
Avoiding a pregnancy is teaching a teen a wrong lesson, even though its obvious that the parents instructions that they remain chaste wasnt obeyed?
Well, there's just a ton of implicit...stuff...here. I feel like you're debating some sort of imaginary Puritan—and those randy buggers knew a lot about carnal sins.
It's interesting that you should focus on "avoiding pregnancy". And you'd probably get general agreement from society that "avoiding pregnancy" is important for teens.
This is, of course, suicidal. We're so good at avoiding pregnancy, we're killing ourselves.
So, what's good for the individual, presumably the consequence-free hedonic pursuit of sex, is killing Western civilization.
Killed the Romans, too.
You tell me what's important.
Is sex outside of marriage wrong unless there are consequences?
There are consequences, unseen though they may be. I've been percolating a long blog post on the topic which I will one day write, probably.
One of the points I wish to make is that the feminists were right on at least two issues:
1. You know that old saw about how men want to marry a virgin because they don't want to be compared? I think that's absolutely true. The more "comparisons" a woman has, the less likely she is to be faithful to him.
2. The patriarchy keeping women down? It existed. And was necessary. (It kept men down, too, is part of that point.)
I'm not married as you all know, I can no longer get pregnant at my age. Is it wrong for me to take a lover, or a friend with benefits?
Society has always been more lenient once you're out of the fertility window. You're supposed to serve as a good example at that point, presumably.
'course, what's happening now is old dudes hopped up on Viagra are spreading VD throughout retirement communities.
What are the consequences to me having a sex life? Will I go to hell?
St. Augustine is instructive here. He said "Evil is distance from God."
I don't believe God sends anyone to Hell. I do believe we make our own.
Like, you know, poor Trooper York and his reality show. *ducks*
Must sex outside of marriage have consequences in adult people?
Consequences or results of your actions are generally those set by society....and biology. The approval or disapproval varies from society to society and doesn't always have to do with religion or hell. That is all in YOUR head.
Your personal religion can be the underpinnings of your personal belief in the place of sex and marriage, but in the larger society we are talking about the general effects and consequences as approved or disapproved.
Adults can have sex outside of marriage (assuming that they aren't already married to someone) and the consequences are many and varied. When sex has nothing to do with eventual marriage the results can be good or bad. Some good: companionship and fun Some bad: disease and pregnancy, poverty and the hardships of raising a child without a family.
It USED to be that society placed value on marriage and family units. Sex was either thought to be one of the goals of marriage. Meaning, you didn't run out and have sex with anyone you could, you waited for the marriage bed.
Now we all know that that goal wasn't always adhered to. Hence that short term pregnancy of the first child. BUT, since marriage and an intact family was the normal result, everyone looked the other way.
If that short term pregnancy never resulted in marriage, the consequences were all well known to everyone in society. Social ostracization, poverty and dependence upon other people, like family to survive. Most women didn't choose to face those consequences.
So....we ended up with probably many marriages that my not have been ideal. The romance of the perfect marriage, which is pretty much a myth anyway, became the reality of two people trying to cope with the consequences of their actions and for the sake of the third person involved: the child.
Sometimes it worked out well....in the case of my husband, whose mother was 16 years old when he was born, one of those short term pregnancies. Their marriage lasted for over 50 years and through 3 more children. It lasted because they had placed value on marriage, fidelity and family.
Now that sex is easy and free.
Now that diseases are easily taken care of ( or were until we have Super Gonorrhea)
Now that the government not only steps in and takes care of the role that the father would have done in the past, but actually encourages more illegitimate children with subsidies.
There is no value placed on sex as a special relationship between men and women.
There is no value placed on marriage and the family unit.
The consequences are that OTHER people will take care of you through involuntary confiscation of their money.
The consequences are that we have a society that has no compass and that is crumbling. If you don't think so....take a trip through Detroit.
Well, the Duggars and their friends will make sure we don't become extinct, no fear.
My last comment addressed to Blake.
DBQ, I place great value on marriage and family, so do the liberals I know. Most are married and have been for many years.
My daughter is married for 15 years with three kids, my youngest daughter will be married this summer. Another daughter was married, now divorced, so I guess the way I brought them up resulted in marriage.
My daughter is married for 15 years with three kids, my youngest daughter will be married this summer. Another daughter was married, now divorced, so I guess the way I brought them up resulted in marriage.
Well, there you go. Bucking the trend of society by raising great children. :-)
I see Allie is not familiar with the work of our friend, Mark Steyn...
Yep, I do like bucking trends, lol.
Speaking of great children, my Navy daughter just messaged me that the Army accidentally burned 200 Korans in the trash, in Bagram. There were demonstrations there and they expect some in the Province her base is in, so now the base is on heightened security. Plus there was an extremely bad IED attack that killed three today. Keep those young people in your thoughts. This makes me very worried.
It's been on CNN already so it was ok for her to tell me.
I wish a good looking girl would come out here right now, and buck my trend.
Allie wrote "What are the consequences to me having a sex life? Will I go to hell?"
Only if you do it right. ;^)
AllenS said...
I wish a good looking girl would come out here right now, and buck my trend.
Hear that ladies? AllenS has a trendsetter position open.
Change the "b" and "t" in Allen's wish to "f" and he'd sound like JFK talking about Mimi Alford.
The Romans are dead, Blake? That's an interesting one. Why, I hear there are millions of them are alive and kicking, even to this day. Of course, they might not be out-"birthing" the Muslims, or whichever "other" of the day is deemed the West's enemy. But that does not mean they are dying off.
And the downfall of their empire? If that's what you're talking about, I hardly see how imperial decline or its end is a form of "death". You equate military hegemony with fecundity, or rather with life itself? Strange. Even if it was, did some German tribes out-"reproduce" the Romans? Or did they just over-run them with sheer numbers?
Doesn't sound likely at all. Why is the official language of Italy nowadays not Gothic?
The consequences are that we have a society that has no compass and that is crumbling. If you don't think so....take a trip through Detroit.
Um, Detroit is ONE city and not somehow more representative of a marriage or sex trend than others.
What brought the city down is an auto industry that prevented any mass transit linking the core to its suburban periphery. (IMHO). Every major city (apart from L.A., which is very spread out and segmented anyway) has some sort of mass transit system. After the riots of the 1960s, these cities were able to rebuild. Not so with Detroit. White flight to the suburbs stayed put; never a thought to "re-gentrifying" quaint, old ares they remembered from their youth. And assholes like the Mitt Romneys of America, who did their part to make sure that businesses served the greater purpose of short-term profitability over long-term viability, are what did the domestic auto industry in, which until then was the basis for Detroit's economy in the first place. Until Obama turned it around. (Not the point of the debate, but probably true).
Every major city in America requires a major, and usually somewhat distinct, industry or set of industries.
You guys are debating too much and losing rationality.
lol
Yes, Ritmo, the Romans—the ones I'm talking about—are long dead. As is their culture.
You may have heard of that. It's been the subject of some historical interest in the past 1,500 years.
As long as the lovers of centrally planned shit can come up with an excuse, no matter how ridiculous, for why they fail over and over again (from the days of Hammurabi) they will do so.
'cause the problem is NEVER the geniuses in central planning, whether you call them Soviets or Senators.
Zero union culpability in the decline of the auto companies, Ritmo?
Post a Comment