Palin the Rock Star?

Sarah Palin is in the news again, this time she's accused of being a Diva:

The requirements stated that first-class transport should be provided for Palin, including return trips to and from Anchorage, Alaska, a private jet that "MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger (as defined by interior cabin space) for West Coast Events; or a Hawker 800 or larger (as defined by interior cabin space) for East Coast Events", one suite and two single rooms be booked in a "deluxe hotel", "laptop computer and printer (fully stocked with paper) and to provide access to high-speed internet and WiFi".

For her actual speech, "unopened bottled still water (2 bottles) and bendable straws are to be placed in or near the wooden lectern", while questions had to be screened.

"For Q&A, are to be collected from the audience in advance, pre-screened and a designated representative ... shall ask questions directly of the Speaker to avoid delay time with a roving microphone in the audience," the contract stated.

Look I'm no fan of Sarah Palin - her policies and her lack of knowledge immediately rule out any potential support I might have - but this "revelation" is hardly going to bother me.

The fact is that Sarah Palin is a famous person - like a rock star or an athlete or an actor. As a result of her fame she has certain differences between her and Joe normal about how her life is led. Palin can't walk into a supermarket without causing a stir, and can't walk down the street without causing a minor riot. In order to make her life more bearable and more common sense, she has to hire a small army of minders and security people to follow her around wherever she goes lest she be accosted by rabid fans or rabid enemies. Public appearances require contracts to be signed in much the same way as a touring rock band requires contracts signed as well.

The inclusion of things such as water bottles, bendable straws and certain types of private jet into a contract is quite normal for someone as popular as Palin. if you look at similar contracts for George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and touring bands like U2, things such as those "disclosed" in the Palin contract are present.

Perhaps the most infamous performance contract in rock history was that required by the band Van Halen - namely that a bowl of M&Ms be present in the band's dressing room before the performance, though with all the brown ones removed. Yet what seemed like an illogical request that hinted at the band's unstable ego was actually a deliberate attempt to ensure that the promoters kept the contract, especially when safety was concerned. Van Halen didn't really care two hoots about brown M&Ms, but if they discovered that brown M&Ms were present in the bowl then it was a possible indication that the promoters did not honour other, more important, parts of the contract (such as electrical safety). The presence of bendy straws in Palin's contract may, in fact, be a contractual necessity to prevent bigger problems (especially those faced by famous people interacting with the public).

Rock bands and other famous musicians also include food and drink requirements for the after show party. One band I know had a performance contract which stipulated that certain wine varieties be present while Shiraz must not be included at all. While it made me goggle at the lifestyles of the rich and famous, I nevertheless saw the importance of keeping the rich and famous happy if people wish to make money out of them.

So for me Palin's "performance contract" is nothing more surprising nor controversial as other performance contracts that famous people use. It must be a slow news day for the media if they think such a report is newsworthy.

---

Reap = Sow

Hmmm:

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.

The anti-Obama Christian bloggers

One of the more painful things I have had to read in the past few weeks has been the growing chorus of panic and dismay amongst Christian Bloggers who are going crazy over the prospect of a Barack Obama/Democrat victory.

I have had to remove one Christian blogger from my bookmarks because the standard of his writing now befits that of a propaganda apparatchik. Lee Grady, the editor for Charisma magazine, has also gone ballistic over Obama and has also found himself removed from my bookmarks.

Look - it's not that supporting McCain/Palin and the Republicans is the issue. The issue is when Obama/Biden and the Democrats become agents of the devil who will destroy America.

There's also the sources that these bloggers use that is concerning. When reporting events they tend to link to Drudge, Worldnet daily, neo-con commentators, Townhall and other "reliable" sources of information. This is not to say that "the MSM" are wonderfully accurate - but the fact is that "the MSM" depends upon more readers and watchers and there is a greater element of responsible veracity in "the MSM" than there is among Right-wing rumour sources.

I honestly think many of these Christian bloggers are bearing false witness by repeating the lies that they have heard without checking them properly. Moreover, they speak so badly of Obama that they come close to Jesus' warning about those who speak evil of others being just as bad as murderers.

This is not to say, of course, that it is somehow wrong for Christians to be critical of politicians. A casual perusal of this blog will show you my opinion of George W. Bush, John Howard and others. By contrast to the "Obama is evil" Christian bloggers, I have spoken kindly about John McCain and tried to examine his religious beliefs more objectively. In regards to Sarah Palin, I gave as objective a summary of her background at first, and then spent considerable time examining and then debunking many of the smears on her character that appeared soon after her VP nomination. Yet I do not think the McCain/Palin ticket is the better solution.

In short, I have not demonised McCain/Palin in the same way that Christian bloggers have demonised Barack Obama.

Moreover, I have to say that I am starting to get concerned about where this will lead. Polls suggest a much greater chance of an Obama win than a McCain win, which means that a situation might arise in which a great number of angry, terrified Christians are faced with an Obama White House and a Pelosi/Reid Congress.

What will these Christians do? Hopefully they will settle down, look back at what they believed in the lead up to his victory and then begin to exmaine their beliefs more objectively. Unfortunately, given the propensity of American Christians to be convinced that fiction is fact (eg Harry Potter and Satanism) I don't think this is going to happen. I'm worried, though, that violence may occur in response to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi victory as Christians take up the arms guaranteed by the constitution, refuse to pay taxes and begin overt resistance to the world of evil that they believe exists in the form of Obama and the Democrats.

I'm an Evangelical Christian. That means I do believe in the spirit world, including the existence of Satan. At the moment, though, I would guess that Satan is hiding more behind the actions of out of control American Christians than behind Barack Obama. If violence does ensue after the election - violence backed by and instigated by Christians - it will be the worst thing to happen to the church since the Spanish Inquisition. This time, however, at least I am expecting it.

Dear God, I do not pray for an Obama victory. Neither do I pray for a McCain victory. I pray that whomever you have sovereignly chosen to occupy the White House will be a man whose actions and policies make America and the world a better and more peaceful place. I pray that your church maintain its faith in you through this process and not be tempted by the excesses of any political belief they may hold, whether that be "politically conservative" or "progressive" in nature. Give your church a desire for personal holiness, an enthusiasm for your Word, the Bible, and a focus upon Christ on the cross, the empty tomb and the prospect of his eventual return. Amen.

Peggy Hill and Sarah Palin

McCain, Money and Mondale

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows my distaste for the US Republican Party. This distaste has been present ever since George W. Bush won the 2000 election. This does not mean that I am a partisan Democratic supporter, but it does mean that, at present, I honestly believe that the best choice America has in November is Obama and Biden.

The fact is that I will support whatever party has the better policies or the better record or a combination of both. Back in 1996 I voted for John Howard and the Liberal Party (which is, ironically, Australia's conservative party) because the Labor Government under Paul Keating was philosophically bankrupt and, despite 13 years of economic reform, had not been fiscally responsible. My support for John Howard evaporated after 2000 when he began to implement racist policies and use the fear generated by 9/11 for political gain. Joining in the 2003 invasion of Iraq was another problem for me.

So my support for the Democratic Party and Obama has nothing really to do with partisanship. I am sure that I would support the Republican Party at other times if their history since 1981 was different. Having said that, I will state now that a McCain/Palin victory in November may possibly end in disaster.

I personally have no beef with John McCain, and the only thing that really worries me about Sarah Palin is whether or not she is capable of being America's president in case McCain goes to meet his maker. The policies of John McCain, though, are problematic - specifically his tax cutting program.

I have seen a comparison of Obama's and McCain's tax plan and McCain gives the biggest tax cuts by far. Obama gives bigger tax cuts to lower income earners than McCain, while increasing the taxes of those on higher incomes, with the end result being a small net tax cut.

For many conservatives, the idea of a tax cut is wonderful news. The problem is that McCain, along with Obama, has yet to explain how such a tax cut will impact government spending. I am of the belief that any tax cut should be met by a corresponding cut in government spending. I am also of the belief that if anyone wants to increase government spending, then taxes must rise as well.

The problem is that, for the last 25 years, the Republican Party has been dominated more or less by Supply-side economics, a form of "voodoo economics" which believes that tax cuts fund themselves by stimulating economic growth and generating more tax revenue. While there is some truth to be found in the more intellectual corners of this economic system, it has resulted in a simplistic and effective myth -  that the government should just keep cutting taxes.

After 25 or more years, popular supply-side economics has resulted in nothing but large federal government deficits. Ronald Reagan's big tax cuts in the 1980s were followed by increased tax revenue but also a corresponding increase in public debt. It was not until George H.W. Bush raised taxes after his "read my lips" promise that Supply side economics began to lose its influence. But by that stage, the damage had been done and the US government was deeply in debt.

Such was the loss of standing of Supply side economics that Republicans during the 1990s returned to a more traditional economic stance. Whatever I may have disliked about the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich and their government shutdowns and impeachments, the fact was that they worked with the Clinton administration to balance the budget - a process that eventually led to surpluses near the end of Clinton's presidency.

Unfortunately, the Republican congress under Bush enthusiastically returned to the populist appeal of tax cutting. The result has been astounding, with public debt increasing dramatically. The recent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout will see a substantial increase to this level of debt. The current recession in the United States will also result in lower tax revenues.

So, fiscal irresponsibility + Fannie and Freddie Bailout + recession equals a federal government with a massive debt burden that will most likely exceed any comparative level of net debt in peacetime US history.

Of course, for regular readers, this warning of mine is nothing new. So why am I repeating the fiscal alarm all over again? It is because I believe that a McCain/Palin administration will continue the fiscal irresponsibility started under Bush. Moreover, the inaction of the Democratic-party dominated congress (elected in 2006) has allowed the situation to deteriorate. If the White House continues to be Republican, there is little chance that a Democratic Congress will have the testicular fortitude to stand up to him and pass economically sensible bills.

The only real chance for fiscal responsibility to return to Washington is for a Democratically controlled Congress and White House. Republicans have proven themselves too attached to Supply side economics for the past 25 years (with the notable exception of the Gingrich years) while the Democrats have not.

This is not to say that the Democrats (Obama and congress) won't make a hash of the economy between 2009 and 2012 - I'm just saying that they are less likely to ruin the economy than one in which Republicans control the White House during that period.

Hard decisions must be made in 2009 about the federal budget. Loaded down with increasing amounts of debt, congress and the president must pass spending bills that will ensure that revenue exceeds spending - or at least a bill that will return the budget to surplus over a number of years. In order to do this, taxes must be raised or spending must be cut or some combination of both.

But herein lies the problem. If taxes are to be raised, won't that hurt the economy? And if spending is to be cut, which government departments should suffer the most cuts? Given the massive expansion in military spending since 2003 and the inefficiencies that run through it, and also given the fact that other federal government departments are so small in comparison (completely closing down NASA and the Department of Education won't be enough to stop a big deficit), then whoever sits in the White House next year will have a very unenviable task. What should next year's president do?

Given the nature of the Republican Party, it is unlikely that McCain and Palin will raise taxes or cut military spending. At most, they will probably cut back on other expenses (like NASA or Education), a process that will simply not be enough to return the federal government to a fiscally sound position - to say nothing for the damage that such cuts would make to important government services. The result of a McCain/Palin White House is therefore likely to be one in which the federal debt gets larger and larger - a process that will lead America further into economic decline.

On the other hand, an Obama/Biden White house along with a Democratic Congress is far more likely to make painful but necessary decisions. I'm not saying that this is a given, but I am saying that it is more likely.

Which brings to mind the prophetic words of 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale. When discussing the Reagan tax cuts and the deficits that had resulted from them, Mondale said these fateful words:

By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

Reagan won the election in a landslide, mainly due to the perception that Mondale was a "tax and spend" Democrat. Yet, in hindsight, Mondale's words have come back to haunt the Republican Party and the memory of Reagan. Supply side economics was still in its ascendency during the Reagan years and people had not yet begun to suffer its negative effects. Now that Supply side economics has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be unworkable and ultimately damaging to an economy, the time has come to pay the price for political expediency and financial stupidity.

It was over ten years ago that The Simpsons episode "Trash of the Titans" was aired. In that episode, Homer becomes Springfield's sanitation commissioner, defeating the incumbent Ray Patterson (voiced by Steve Martin), and promises a lot of crazy things for the people of Springfield. Homer's policies soon end up bankrupting his department and completely ruining the city. When Ray Patterson is unanimously voted back in as sanitation commissioner, he gives this wonderfully short speech:

Oh gosh. You know, I'm not much on speeches, but, it's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye.

I can't help but think of comparing Walter Mondale to Ray Patterson here. Twenty-four years after his abysmal failure in the 1984 presidential election, Mondale could probably be justified in repeating Ray Patterson's short speech.

Questions about Palin's faith

This is an interesting video. It goes for nine minutes and is a montage of some of the beliefs and practices of Palin's Alaska church.

After watching it I am not convinced that Sarah Palin has the same sort of beliefs as those depicted. I would much rather hear from Sarah Palin herself what she believes rather than associate her with the theological mess displayed in that video.

Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that if Barack Obama's character is questionable because of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, then Sarah Palin's character should come under the spotlight as well because of what her church believes.

More on Double Standards

Anne Kornblut at the WAPO says:

After following Clinton on the campaign trail for more than two years, I have been watching the Palin story with some wariness -- especially the conservative charges that the treatment she's received has been overwhelmingly sexist. With each new development, I keep wondering: What if?

What if, back in the 1990s, Clinton had announced the pregnancy of an unmarried, teenaged daughter? Would the Republicans have declared it an off-limits family matter and declined to judge her, or would it have turned into a national scandal that hurt her chances as she decided to pursue her own career in elected office?

What if, instead of the GOP's new vice presidential candidate, Clinton had been the one to run for national office without any international experience to speak of? (After all, Clinton's rivals diminished the relevance of her eight years as first lady, saying they counted for little on her résumé.)

And what if Clinton had rejected questions about her record by calling such lines of questioning sexist? What if she had refused to name any national security decisions she had made, as a spokesman for Sen. John McCain did on Palin's behalf last week, on the grounds that the question was unfair?

What if, simply, the roles had been reversed?

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's former communications director, said he is confident that the Republicans "would have attempted to destroy her" if she were in Palin's shoes -- as, in fact, some Republicans tried to do to Clinton throughout the 1990s, and were preparing to do again if she had won the Democratic nomination this year.

At the same time, Wolfson said, Republican attempts "to defend Palin from sexism lost a fair amount of credibility when Carly Fiorina refused to acknowledge that her party had ever been sexist toward Hillary Clinton." (Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief turned McCain economic adviser, told a "hear-me-roar" press conference with other Republican women Wednesday that Republicans were not responsible for any mistreatment of Clinton.) I have had my share of major disagreements with Wolfson over the last few years, but on this one, he is probably right.

The Economist pans Palin

From the realism department:

The political calculations behind Mr McCain’s choice hardly look robust. Mrs Palin is not quite the pork-busting reformer that her supporters claim. She may have become famous as the governor who finally killed the infamous “bridge to nowhere”—the $220m bridge to the sparsely inhabited island of Gravina, Alaska. But she was in favour of the bridge before she was against it (and told local residents that they weren’t “nowhere to her”). As mayor of Wasilla, a metropolis of 9,000 people, she initiated annual trips to Washington, DC, to ask for more earmarks from the state’s congressional delegation, and employed Washington lobbyists to press for more funds for her town.

Nor is Mrs Palin well placed to win over the moderate and independent voters who hold the keys to the White House. Mr McCain’s main political problem is not energising his base; he enjoys more support among Republicans than Mr Obama does among Democrats. His problem is reaching out to swing voters at a time when the number of self-identified Republicans is up to ten points lower than the number of self-identified Democrats. Mr McCain needs to attract roughly 55% of independents and 15% of Democrats to win the election. But it is hard to see how a woman who supports the teaching of creationism rather than contraception, and who is soon to become a 44-year-old grandmother, helps him with soccer moms in the Philadelphia suburbs. A Rasmussen poll found that the Palin pick made 31% of undecided voters less likely to plump for Mr McCain and only 6% more likely.

The moose in the room, of course, is her lack of experience. When Geraldine Ferraro was picked as Walter Mondale’s running-mate, she had served in the House for three terms. Even the hapless Dan Quayle, George Bush senior’s sidekick, had served in the House and Senate for 12 years. Mrs Palin, who has been the governor of a state with a population of 670,000 for less than two years, is the most inexperienced candidate for a mainstream party in modern history.

In terms of the reliability of this publication, The Economist is a British-based international weekly magazine that openly supports free markets and small governments. It supported the candidacy of George Bush in 2000 and 2004 and supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Personally those points were enough to make me no longer subscribe to the magazine and harbour all sorts of negative thoughts towards them... but these comments are therefore all the more important because they come from a conservative economic publication that is independent of the Republican Party. Moreover the commentator in this case is an American.

Rugged individualism and self reliance

I personally don't have any problem with welfare spending. I think it's important to help people on lower incomes. If putting Sarah Palin up as VP means that the Republicans want more people to get welfare, that's a good thing. I'm just saying.

Update:
Sarah Palin’s home state is awash with money.

Republican Double Standards

, shockwave-flash@http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml#!flashvars#videoId=184086" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml#%21flashvars#videoId=184086" id="">

This is brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. It highlights the whole "It's okay if you're a Republican" stance. It's Jon Stewart.

McCain and Palin want us to keep talking about Bristol

, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/NCPZZb7zHp8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/NCPZZb7zHp8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" id="">

I'm really sorry, but the above clip shows very clearly that pregnant Bristol and boyfriend Levi are quite happy to be in the political spotlight. McCain, who is seen shaking hands with the stout lad and giving grandfatherly hugs to beaming Bristol and hold both of her hands like he's been doing it all his life.

And this wasn't some film crew capturing a personal moment - McCain and Palin did this for media purposes, to ensure that these images went around the TV screens and the internet.

All these angry people (and I'm not pointing fingers at any regular commentators here btw) who are furious about the media coverage of Sarah Palin's private life and that of her poor teenage daughter need to realise that both Palin AND McCain have, by creating this photo op, turned Bristol's pregnancy into an attempt for political gain.

Here's Josh Marshall from TPM:

Since there is widespread agreement that the children of candidates should not become topics of campaign debate, it behooves us to note that the McCain campaign has almost singlehandedly made Sarah Palin's daughter a central figure in the Republican convention.

It was the McCain campaign that announced Palin's daughter's pregnancy. That alone might be understandable since it appears a supermarket tabloid was about to print the story. But it was the McCain campaign, entirely on its own, that dished up unsubstantiated claims about maternity tests and all sorts of other lurid nonsense that had never been seen in print anywhere. And now the McCain campaign has staged a ceremonial laying-on-of-hands on the tarmac in St. Paul in which Sen. McCain has given his official blessing to the young couple and embrace of Bristol's boyfriend Levi.

(BTW I disagree with his assertion that the McCain campaign was the source of the "Is Bristol the mother of Trig?" rumours)

An evangelical who is unhappy with Palin

This is from Sojourner, aka Brad Williams, a Pastor from Alabama:

I believe that the evangelical world, at least the complementarian evangelical world is smiling right now with Senator McCain's pick of Gov. Sarah Palin. Except, I have the sinking feeling that it may be one of those pasted-on fake smiles that attempts to mask the turning of the mental wheels.

First of all, we evangelicals like Gov. Palin. She's pro-life. She has five children. She chose not to abort her Down's Syndrome son. She seems like a happy person. Plus, rumor has it that her husband has won the Iditarod four times, which means he's a manly man at least. She seems like a great lady.

So why is the smile turning to a look of concern? Because she has five children, one of them is a special needs child less than five months old. Evangelicals has spent the last forty years trying to convince moms that the home is the highest calling of her life. How does a woman be VP of the USA and still be mommy to five children? How is our whole-hearted support for her candidacy not akin to 'taking back' all of our ballyhoo about women being needed at home more than the office?

Now we find out that her seventeen year old daughter is pregnant and planning to marry. How will Gov. Palin find time to guide her daughter through this process and still maintain the rigorous schedule of the office of Vice-President?

As much as I like Gov. Palin, as much as I admire her down-to-earthness, her pro-life stance, and her general winsomeness, I am not happy about this choice for Vice-President. I think it goes against much of what I have been attempting to teach the men and women of our church, and it goes against much of the teaching that I have heard from some of the same folks who support this move. How am I supposed to convince the ladies of my church that it is nobler to relinquish career and income for the sake of educating and mothering her children while waving the banner for Gov. Palin? It smacks of political expediency, and I am afraid that it makes evangelicals look like the glassy-eyed Republican 'yes-men' that we are often accused of being.

I am troubled by this move, and I am more than a little dissappointed with the way it has been treated by most evangelical pundits. That is, we have praised her virtues as a mother...and yet we have been silent on why this run for VP is not the best thing she can do for her children. And if it is, why have we so consistently and adamantly insisted that the best place for a mother is in the home?

The Basic problem - experience

, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/9c12DfJ_J2A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9c12DfJ_J2A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" id="">

I have to agree with Carville on this one. I'm beginning to realise how good James Carville is when facts are on his side (as opposed to other occasions of course).

What if Bristol were black?

From the department of It's okay if you're a Republican?

Christian-right leaders and conservative stalwarts have praised the decision of Bristol Palin, the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin, to carry her child to term. She is 17 and conceived this child out of wedlock. Now imagine she wasn't the daughter of a prominent Republican politician but an average person. Now imagine she was black.

What do you think conservatives would have to say about her? "Typical, urban youth with no sense of responsibility raised with loose morals who plans to depend on the state to take care of her child." You know it. It's not within dispute. That's exactly what they would say.

Barack Obama has told everyone to lay off this because it is a personal, family matter. Yes, but it also has public policy ramifications. Governor Palin is for abstinence only education. Well, that obviously didn't work.

Has she learned her lesson? Will she now amend her policy position on this matter given her personal record of failure in implementing this ridiculous stance?

Notice I am not blaming Bristol. Quite the opposite. People like me are the ones that defend the Bristols of the world. It is conservatives like James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and yes, Governor Palin who usually attack people who find themselves in Bristol's situation. They demand a dogmatic adherence to moral strictures and chastise and belittle women who have children out of wedlock. Especially if they are women of color.

Which brings us back to Obama. Do you think the Republicans would lay off of Obama if his 17 year-old daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock? You know the answer to that question. Everyone does.

"This is what the permissive liberal attitude gets you. If you allow your children to think everything is acceptable, they have no boundaries. They wind up getting themselves in trouble like this. It's a predictable result of the liberal lifestyle."

And that's before the subtle and not so subtle racial implications are brought into this. There is a constant double-standard of how black and white people and politicians are covered in this country. When a young black girl gets pregnant, she's looking to get money from welfare. When a young white woman gets pregnant, she made an unfortunate mistake and her family is being supportive in trying to help the make the best of it.

Cindy McCain was addicted to drugs and stole from her own charity to feed her addiction. Now what do you think the Republicans would have done if Michelle Obama had done that? How do you think the press would have covered it? You think they would have called it a simple mistake and moved on?

When presented with these examples, no matter who you are, you know in your heart that this double standard exists. All of this is not said to condemn Bristol Palin or Cindy McCain. This is to get you to think twice about your own assumptions about the next time you hear a story of a young African-American woman who got pregnant in the inner city or a minority who got addicted to drugs and committed a crime to feed that addiction.

There but for the grace of God go Bristol Palin and Cindy McCain.

Here's Bill O'Reilly in December 2007:

On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.

Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves.

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the family, said in January this year:

...the number of working mothers who think a full-time job is the ideal arrangement for them has dropped more than 10 percent in the last decade — a reflection, one must assume, of a renewed realization that nothing is more important than being there for your kids.

James Dobson, in "The New Dare To Discipline", blames the supposed crumbling of “moral values” and “anarchy that is now rumbling through the midsection of democracy” on working mothers and “permissiveness.”

More on Sarah Palin

Hmmm. I've been doing some more research into Sarah Palin, John McCain's surprise pick as Vice President.

Of huge interest is the fact that she has revealed that her teenage daughter is pregnant. Apparently this information was released as a way of countering all that news on the internet about her recent birth of Trig, who has Down's syndrome, actually being a cover-up of Trig actually being her daughter's baby.

As a result, I have spent a bit of time "muck-raking". I've been searching the internet like a sewer rat trying to find evidence of any cover-up. While some may say that this is nothing but a way to smear her, my response is simply that I will try to present facts and then see where they go. My aim is always to be objective, of course. I have no personal beef against Palin.

If it is true that Sarah Palin was not actually pregnant and that it was actually her daughter Bristol who gave birth, then these points are interesting:

• Such a cover up would have been difficult to keep quiet. The entire Palin family would have to have agreed not to let anyone know that Bristol was pregnant. Not only that, but her personal staff and extended family would have some idea of what is going on.
  
• Sarah Palin's motive in covering up her daughter's pregnancy is important here. This motive would be so important to her that she created an elaborate scam and made people believe that she was pregnant. This would be a very politically risky action, since any political fallout resulting from her daughter's pregnancy would be nothing compared to any political fallout resulting from her scam being exposed.
  
• Having said that, there is some concern about her actions immediately preceding Trig's birth. She began "leaking" prior to making a speech in Texas, yet managed to make the speech, jump on a flight to Seattle, wait around for a connecting flight to Anchorage, fly to Anchorage, then, ignoring the Anchorage hospitals, drive 42 miles to a hospital in Palmer. There she is induced and gives birth some eight hours later, with her family doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, present at the birth. This sequence of events did not pass unnoticed by the press at the time, but the questions asked were not about whether she was "faking it", but whether they were wise, considering her health.
  
• Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, the Palin family doctor, has commented publicy about the being present at the birth. If a cover-up has occurred, then Baldwin-Johnson was part of it. Baldwin-Johnson, from everything I have read so far on the internet, is a highly skilled and respected physician and is considered one of Alaska's top doctors. Moreover, she was "named the 2002 Family Physician of the Year by the American Academy of Family Physicians". Examples of her competence and skill can be found here, and here (with photo). Of course it is possible for such a respected figure to involve herself in such an elaborate cover-up, but the risks in doing so would be huge.
  
• There are no photos I have seen yet which show Palin in an advanced state of pregnancy prior to the birth of Trig. Then again, Alaska is a small state and its media would hardly have the same sort of image resources that bigger states would have. By way of contrast, the Hunter Valley, where I live, has about 90% the population of Alaska and I can't even remember who our mayor is, let alone find large amounts of images of him/her.
• Interestingly, there is no online record of Trig's birth at the hospital. Trig was born on April 22, but the hospital's online records do not show this. Of course, there may be all sorts of reasons for this, not least the decision to keep such an event private. The fact that the hospital doesn't have an online record of the birth does not mean that the hospital didn't record it. Moreover, if you look at the actual pages, there are pictures of happy families and babies all over the place. I can imagine that the governor of the state requested that no photos be taken of Trig. I can also imagine other "regular" parents doing the same thing.
• Moreover, if Trig was not Sarah's child but Bristol's, what would be the point of dragging the poor kid a few hundred miles north, past the Arctic Circle, to be present at some whaling festival? Politicans will always drag their family along with them for photo shoots, but I think that dragging along your grandson and passing it off as your own in front of a bunch of voters would be too much. It's possible, but very, very cynical.
• In short, it is much easier to believe that Trig is Sarah Palin's fifth child than it is to believe that it is Bristol's. Providing photos of the birth and Trig's birth certificate may be able to quell some of the speculation, but, as it stands, the idea that Trig is Bristol's son is something that just doesn't work out. Why the elaborate cover-up? Why involve one of Alaska's most prominent physicians in the cover-up? It just doesn't add up.
• Hanlon's Razor is important here: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  

Having said all those things, however, I would like to point out one more thing that conservative "family-values" voters should take into consideration - is Sarah Palin being a responsible mother? She has a infant son with a serious disability that will need more and more looking after as he gets older. More than that, she now has a pregnant teenage daughter who is going to marry her boyfriend. Her daughter will need her help and support. Regardless of her political pedigree, is it really wise for her to embark upon a Vice-Presidential campaign? Is it really wise for her to have these family stresses while working as America's second most powerful person? Would her commitment to her son and daughter be compromised by her role as Vice President or even President?

One thing is for sure - there are plenty of people out there who are qualified to be Vice President. But is there anyone else out there better qualified to be Bristol and Trig's mom?

Update 08:00GMT

Finally saw a picture of Palin pregnant. You can see it here. It's a link to a Right wing site but there's no reason to think the photo was doctored in any way.

Unfortunately for Palin, it seems that the Myspace sites of Bristol and her friends were not taken down fast enough. One lot of photos is here and while it shows some nice family shots of a newborn Trig it also shows quite a lot of underage drinking and partying down. I can't be certain but some of the shots I think involve Bristol. Another set of photos is here. The New York Daily News also has some shots of Bristol's boyfriend Levi.

In short, the "next big thing" in the news is going to be Palin's moral conservative political stance being contrasted with the underage drinking and premarital sex going on in her family. Again, let me state that I am not absolutely certain that any of the photos show Bristol since I (and many others) cannot identify these people accurately. It doesn't look good, though.

Thoughts on Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is the big news story at the moment in the US (apart from Hurricane Gustav). Palin is John McCain's choice as Vice President and has caused a bit of controversy. Here are my thoughts:

1. Palin is currently governor of Alaska. Regardless of the fact that Alaska is one of the smaller states in the US, becoming governor is no minor achievement. Was her rise to power a result of corruption and yada yada yada? Yeah probably, but until it's proven I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
2. Palin has been governor for less than two years (she was elected in December 2006). Before that her political experience was limited to being Mayor of Wasilla. Her time as mayor was not without controversy, and she managed to fire some people for not supporting her politically - but, if Wikipedia is to be believed - her actions were not illegal.
3. It could be argued that being mayor of a small town (5000-8000 people) and less than two years as governor indicates "lack of experience". McCain's criticism of Obama has been based on this supposed characteristic. But by picking Palin, McCain has pretty much nullified this angle of attack. Personally I don't think Obama is inexperienced. Palin, similarly, may be "inexperienced" in terms of amount of years spent in major political office but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly I would have reservations - especially if McCain dies in office and Palin takes over - but they are not major ones.
4. There's a lot of heat in the lefty blogosphere regarding the birth of her latest child. Trig Palin was born in April this year and suffers from Down syndrome. The fact that Palin had a child while in her 44th year during her term as governor is, when put together, a very unusual event. As a result, many have speculated that Trig was actually her daughter's baby, born out of wedlock, which Sarah Palin covered up by announcing it was hers. Now I have read quite a few of these arguments, seen pictures of Palin allegedly taken just before the baby was born (showing no outward hint of pregnancy), read about her daughter who had "mono" and stayed home from school for eight months at precisely the same time as her mother's pregnancy, seen a photo of her daughter looking a bit "robust" in the abdomen... but I have to say that there is nothing yet that convinces me outright. There'a a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing definite. Besides, the circumstantial evidence can quite easily be explained. In this case the onus is not upon Palin to prove that the pregnancy was hers. Any refusal on her part to address this issue is not an admission of guilt and should be let go. Fortunately wiser heads in the lefty blogosphere have prevailed and reports about this issue are scarce (although comments threads are buzzing).
5. A rather more interesting aspect of her personal life was reported by Americablog. Apparently Palin and her husband eloped rather than having a wedding and their first child was born slightly less than 8 months later. Although there are other explanations to this, conceiving a child out of wedlock and then suddenly getting married and then covering it up is as reasonable a possibility as getting pregnant on your wedding night and then giving birth prematurely. Now since Palin is, apparently, a religious conservative, her social/political stance is potentially affected by her actions when younger - especially so if she has not be open about it. Had Palin not been a religious conservative and did not have such a soical/political stance, this revelation would not be important. Conceiving a child out of wedlock does not disqualify a person from public office by itself. I personally think that there is enough doubt here to necessitate some level of disclosure by Palin if she is to gain votes from religious conservatives since there is a glaring disconnect between her marriage date and the birth date of her first child. Moreover, if Palin does admit fault in this case, I doubt that her admission would lose her votes. In any case, because of her ties to religious conservatism, an explanation of this situation is warranted.
6. In many areas, Palin is a "boilerplate conservative". She's a member of the NRA. She supports oil drilling in Alaska. She's an Anthropogenic Climate Change denier. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes. She is pro-life. She does not support equal rights for homosexuals. She supports capital punishment. In short, Palin is a candidate that appeals to the Republican base. McCain, on the other hand, has a more centrist position. I would say that the reason why McCain chose Palin was to ensure more voter turnout from committed conservatives who are not happy with McCain's more centrist positions.
7. I can't help comparing Palin with Harriet Miers. Miers, a White House counsel, was nominated by Bush to be appointed to supreme court. It proved to be a disastrous choice, coming so soon after the Hurricane Katrina debacle and alienating many within the Republican party. For all of Palin's strengths, I really wonder whether there could have been a better choice. In my opinion, McCain should've selected another more centrist Republican with a lot more experience, along with a proven record of good governance and a willingness to build consenus. It's not that Palin is going to be a disaster as a VP - she might turn out to be the best VP in history - but whether Americans can trust her. In the final months of the second term of America's worst president, trust and respect are gold.