Nope, not what I said. However, the other option, that it's ALWAYS the parents' fault, is hardly logical. And I think it's silly to say that the fact that her daughter got pregnant is reflective of her mother's secret anti-abstinence stance.
Of about 30 people we persuaded to register, one was older than me and had NEVER registered to vote. Never.
There are also times when I wonder if I'm doing a disservice by encouraging these people to vote. If they are this disassociated from the process, they maybe they'll decide who to vote for by flipping a coin.
Maybe allowing people to self-select who votes increases the likelihood that the voters are intelligent, informer voters.
Bingo!
__________________ Whatever doesn't kill you, is gonna leave a scar...
Nope, not what I said. However, the other option, that it's ALWAYS the parents' fault, is hardly logical. And I think it's silly to say that the fact that her daughter got pregnant is reflective of her mother's secret anti-abstinence stance.
I never said her mother was anti-abstinence. I just said she was incapable of practicing what she preached.
You are being a little thick on this, you know? Especially with that bit about having biased, political BS. I stated my interpretation of your statement. You turned that into me being biased. Projecting a bit, are we?
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
I never said her mother was anti-abstinence. I just said she was incapable of practicing what she preached.
She did practice what she preached. Her daughter did not.
How, by the way, do you explain differences amongst siblings? I know families where there are some children who do very well at school and never get into trouble, while their siblings don't do especially well at school and are always in trouble. They both had the same parents; isn't this evidence that there are other factors at work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
You are being a little thick on this, you know? Especially with that bit about having biased, political BS. I stated my interpretation of your statement. You turned that into me being biased. Projecting a bit, are we?
Of about 30 people we persuaded to register, one was older than me and had NEVER registered to vote. Never.
There are also times when I wonder if I'm doing a disservice by encouraging these people to vote. If they are this disassociated from the process, they maybe they'll decide who to vote for by flipping a coin.
Maybe allowing people to self-select who votes increases the likelihood that the voters are intelligent, informer voters.
Emphasis mine. I would say that it increases the likelihood that the those who vote are interested voters, who consider themselves intelligent and informed.
That said, I am working under the assumption that your voter registration drive is intended to increase the number of democrat votes in Indiana. If that assumption is true, let me suggest a slightly different Modus Operandi:
1. When you knock on peoples doors, start out by saying that you are doing a political poll. Some people will close the door right there, but just go to the next door in that case.
2. Proceed to ask a set of innocuous-sounding questions about political opinions - no hot-button issues! Choose the questions so that you can make a good prediction of their GOP-DEM choice, though.
3. If they after 5-10 questions seem to lean GOP, thank them for their time, and move on.
4. If they, OTOH, lean DEM: Give them a pack of voter registration materials, and offer to help them with whatever questions they have.
5. Rinse/repeat for the next voter.
She did practice what she preached. Her daughter did not.
Given her elopement to marry her childhood sweetheart and her quick arrival of her son, Track, I think the odds are good that she did not practice what she preached.
Then again, her son could have just been early.
Either way, we don't KNOW if she practiced what she preached because we still (thank goodness) have at least that amount of privacy lef in our lives.
Well, that place is called Norrbotten. It contains about 25% of the nation´s land surface, and maybe 3% of its population. It is by far the coldest part of the nation, and is the only one traversed by the arctic circle. There are a lot of rivers, enormous forested lands, the highest mountains in the nation, and some glaciers. There are a lot of reindeer and moose, and snowmobiling is a popular/common pastime. The most important economic activities are natural resource extraction - iron ore mining, hydroelectric power, and timber industry.
Once you get out of the few towns (largest: pop. about 70000, 4-5 above 10000) you quickly come into the boonies. The men in those villages love to hunt, hold their guns in higher esteem than their daughters, and consider moonshine-making one of the highest cultural art forms. Not that there is anything else to compete with it in their places. The women tend to be among the youngest when they give birth for the first time, and they do give birth - on average - more times during their lifetime than women to the south. Speeding, and drunk driving, on deserted forest roads are the by far most common crimes. Teenagers - especially girls - who do not like this decidedly un-urban lifestyle tend to move the day after their high school graduation. Always far to the south, and they generally do not come back. The man/woman ratio (among those in marriageable ages) is among the highest in the nation, and there are villages in which the majority of the men have gotten wives from 3rd- and 2nd world countries, Thailand and Russia being especially popular places.
To top it off, it is one of the most red-voting parts of the country.
Seems like Gov. Palin would find it just like home?
Hardly.
Outside of USA, red-voting is socialistic. There are quite few voting precincts in which what-passes-for-conservative can get more votes than the the communists. Those few are urban, generally. Many voting precincts in Norrbotten are such that the communists alone get more votes than all the non-socialist parties (moderates, liberals, church party, farmer´s party) combined. In one voting precinct, Nilivaara, the communists have even gotten an absolute majority!
No politician uses the word "Patriot" to describe himself, that would be instant political suicide. Many of the voters want taxes increased, the more the better. Many of those voters want the money raised by taxes to be used for all sorts of projects, but if that is not possible, they would prefer the money to be completely lost rather than rich people keeping it - even if that means that they get their tax rates increased also. It is one of the least religious parts of the country, which given the rest really says something. The atheists tend to let the few religious people know what the former think of the latter, in no uncertain terms. If one is part of a 97%+ majority, one can do stuff like that with impunity.
Wonder what a USA politician would make out of that if they were forced to stay there for some extended period of time. Hey, idea for a new TV format "Survivor, the politicians´s edition".
That said, I am working under the assumption that your voter registration drive is intended to increase the number of democrat votes in Indiana. If that assumption is true, let me suggest a slightly different Modus Operandi:
1. When you knock on peoples doors, start out by saying that you are doing a political poll. Some people will close the door right there, but just go to the next door in that case.
2. Proceed to ask a set of innocuous-sounding questions about political opinions - no hot-button issues! Choose the questions so that you can make a good prediction of their GOP-DEM choice, though.
3. If they after 5-10 questions seem to lean GOP, thank them for their time, and move on.
4. If they, OTOH, lean DEM: Give them a pack of voter registration materials, and offer to help them with whatever questions they have.
5. Rinse/repeat for the next voter.
I'm not knocking on all doors. I'm conducting a poll of people in the area who fall into some demographic. Thus, I get a printout from the web site (which is accessible to anyone who enrolls). It's a neighbor-to-neighbor tool.
1. I wear my political T-shirt so people know immediately why I'm there and people have no answered the door. Good. If they don't want to be bothered, I don't want to bother them. The one thing hammered consistently is: Do NOT leave any flyers in mailboxes. Ever. [Only postage paid mail is allowed in mailboxes.]
2. None of the questions are hot button. The script is: Hi, I'm Linda. Is X here? I'm working for the committee for change and I'd like to ask a few short questions. Have you decided how you're voting this fall? If they say McCain, I say thank you and have a nice day. End of conversation. My instructions are to not waste this person's time and/or risk annoying them. If they are undecided, I ask about what topics are important to them and have a list to check off.
For voter registration, we're going to stores that will allow us to set up a table and ask shoppers (on their way in and out) if they're registered to vote. We have all the necessary paperwork with us and the person in charge (a full-time worker, not me) takes the paperwork to the proper office. We're looking almost certainly at a record turnout.
We're also encouraging absentee ballots for those who have potential conflicts.
We do not ask which way a person is voting before offering them a voter registration form. I realize it would be advantageous to do so but that just seems... well... wrong. Unless, of course, you're in Chicago. [The last sentence is a joke.]
We have until October 6th to register to vote if we haven't voted before and/or if we have moved. It's important to re-register if one moves and there are restrictions about voting within x amount of time of moving.
In my state, one is required to provide a government ID to vote and if they don't have this, they need to ask for a provisional ballot, which is then set aside until you return within X days with government ID. While all forms of government ID are accepted, some poll workers are misinformed and when I voted in the primary, my government ID was rejected. I did have my Indiana driver's license with me and that was accepted. The poll worker was wrong, but I wasn't going to argue about it since I had another ID with me.
This makes it more difficult for the dead to vote. It also means that in the primary, a group of elderly nuns were not allowed to cast ballots since they had no ID. [They didn't drive.]
She did practice what she preached. Her daughter did not.
How, by the way, do you explain differences amongst siblings? I know families where there are some children who do very well at school and never get into trouble, while their siblings don't do especially well at school and are always in trouble. They both had the same parents; isn't this evidence that there are other factors at work?
I don't think so.
You are being thick, but you refuse to see your own fallacies. No point in continuing this, if you honestly think she is only preaching that only the parent should be abstinent, but their children don't have to be. The government cannot say abstinence is the way it should be, and expect others to follow, if they can't do it in a small, lets say, "research group".
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Well, unfortunately, it seems that people think that the only way to control people is with direct action, instead of, I don't know, possibly training their thoughts like parenting is. Yes, chaining to the basement will work, following them everywhere they go will work...but that's just stupid. The fact that that is the only counter-argument presented either means people are being either daft or impudent.
I am afraid that it is you who are stubbornly refusing to see the point.
Physical restraints are the only infallible methods of controlling the behavior of another human being. The ones you are advocating do not and will never suffice alone, because human beings have independent minds and various drives which can and do overcome the strongest of parental indoctrinations. Or ANY indoctrinations. Military. Patriotic. Religious. You name it.
You seem to be arguing that if only a child is given the "right" upbringing, its subsequent behavior is guaranteed. A moment's honest thought should suffice to show anyone that this is not the case. I wonder that you are taking the untenable position that it is, and suspect that perhaps you are doing so because it is the only way to blame Palin instead of the actual person responsible for the behavior in question. And blaming the daughter yields no political reward, does it? Only if it can be made the mother's failure can hay be made here...
Quote:
It's the child's fault they were mentally messed up.
So, you have a quarrel with the doctrine of personal responsibility? How far does it go? Is the parent 45% responsible for the offspring's behavior? 55%? How about "society"? Peer pressure? Drugs, alcohol? Radon gas or black mold in the home? Alien mind control?
Is what we do ever just our fault?
And if not---clearly, by your logic, Sara Palin's faults and failures must be her parent's responsibilities, not hers. Right? So how can you "blame the victim"?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Never once did I say that the child was not at fault as well. Accountability is something that must happen in order to make any progress. Of course the subsequent behavior is not guaranteed, but adaptability by the parent changes the outcomes available.
Given that many, if not most, children from terrible parents that abuse them still want to go back to those parents afterwards, there is very good proof that children, of all ages, want to earn the acceptance from parents, no matter how horrible they are(and believe me, I've known some horrible things performed that the child still went back to the parent). Usually the reason they do the extremely stupid stuff is either because the parent did not address it and ecouraged/ignored it, or that they are doing it to get attention from the parent when they feel they are ignored. Both of those are parental neglect.
Even a 12 year old must be held accountable for their actions. At the end of the day, they are still the one that made the choice. However, the person who set the variables and put that choice in their realm of possibility was the parent. They each have a responsibility for it happening, just different aspects. A parent can change the possibilities available to the child, and therefore limit their actions. This can be done either physically or mentally, with mentally tending to have greater success(hence the success rate of cognitive behavioral therapy).
All those things you listed that could take responsibility are put into perspective by the person's individual upbringing. Yes, Sarah Palin's parents do have some effect on her actions, because they are most likely the model that she parents after. But most adults at her age do not double check with their parents anymore, unlike a child, especially not in regards to how they are parenting. There is not a direct line from her parents to her child, other than the standard grandparent spoiling(which tends to be a positive thing in most cases).
In the end, it really doesn't matter how many things you can blame the fault on. Even if the situation was completely out of your control, the people that tend to handle it best are those that assume fault and deal with it accordingly. This then teaches them to deal with the situation, instead of avoiding it. Both mother and daughter are at fault. In all reality, the daughter is getting the crappy end of the deal, and she has to deal with it. If she is able to take accountability, and raise her child well, more power to her. That is always a possibility, but it is one with a lower success rate. The whole point of avoiding teenage pregnancy is that it is bad for the teenage mother and her child, as the mother is not prepared financially or educationally, and the child suffers for it.
The difference here is, the mother is trying to tell the country how they should be doing things, and the daughter isn't. If the daughter were running, it would be more blatant hypocrisy. As it is, the mother is the one running, saying that everybody should be held to a standard she does not represent. She may have done it herself, but in raising her child, she did not. How can she expect all those who will listen to her to do the action she was unable to?
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Well, unfortunately, it seems that people think that the only way to control people is with direct action, instead of, I don't know, possibly training their thoughts like parenting is. Yes, chaining to the basement will work, following them everywhere they go will work...but that's just stupid. The fact that that is the only counter-argument presented either means people are being either daft or impudent.
If teaching and caring and being involved don't affect behavior, the "abstinence only," "just say no to drugs" and all the other stuff that the right has impressed upon us is meaningless. How can it be true that we can teach people that "abstinence until marriage is the right thing" and then, out of the other side of our mouth, effectively say that such teachings have no real effect?
I still believe that the basic issue is biology - that teen agers are basically uncontrollably horny. Accepting that fact, encouraging them to wait AND providing them with enough knowledge and control to protect themselves if they don't is about all that we can do.
And, also, lets not forget that the Palin family has the good fortune to be able to support the family - something that many, many teenage mothers cannot do. Can it be that teen pregnancy is good for rich kids (or kids of prominent politicians) but bad for poor kids? That makes ZERO sense.
Why does this matter with Palin? Because she has taken the mantle of the dogmatic abstentionist, anti-choice movement. The dogma is the problem, not Bristol.
Anyone who has actually lived in the world and paid attention knows that reality and dogma don't always fit. That is true of left-wing dogma as well as right-wing dogma. When a politician associates herself with these dogmatic positions - even in the face of direct, personal proof of their failure - it shows a lack of judgment and tolerance to the rest of the world.
When the reality of places like the Middle East, the Caucasus Mountains, Latin America or Africa don't meet the dogmatic "right" of Palin, will she take the approach that so many on that side of the aisle do - that god is punishing them, that they are under Satin's control, etc. After all, a consistent theme in Pentacostal belief is an activist, involved god and a devious and very assertive devil.
The issue with Bristol shows that, in Palin's mind, dogma outweighs reality - that is the real underlying issue with her. Wouldn't it have been refreshing for her to, instead, come out and say - "you know what, I've had some very personal experience that taught me that maybe the 'abstinence only' message that I support isn't enough. Maybe we need more to really reduce teen pregnancy." Then, there may have been hope. But no - we get dogma and perhaps the most bizarre display of hypocrisy ever seen. Now, after years of hearing from the right wing (I'm talking Rush, O'Reily, Rove) how teen girls who get pregnant are irresponsible and simply trying to suck of the teat of the public good, we're supposed to accept this trailer trash as a role model?
Perhaps, more than anything, that is what pisses me off about Sarah Palin. She's a dogmatist coming from a line of dogmatists. While they may be harmless and benign when they're living in their communities, they become far more dangerous when put in positions of power. After all, moral certainty is generally bad for the people who don't share the same beliefs. And I, for one, don't share her beliefs.
I keep seeing the word "hypocrisy" bandied about, and I'm not sure everyone actually knows what it means.
The computer I'm on doesn't let me cut and paste the definition from a dictionary, but suffice it to say that it does NOT mean "advocating X, trying to do X, and failing".
It also doesn't mean advocating X to someone and having that someone else do not-X anyway.
A parent, or indeed anyone trying to influence the behavior of another, is scarcely responsible simply because the attempt is unsuccessful.
I mean, I have tried my best to get Neinteen to use proper capitalization and punctuation consistently in her posts. That she continues not to do it does not mean that somehow I don't really want her to do so, or that I don't really believe in doing so, or even that I just haven't tried ( or tried hard enough ).
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
It's pretty cool how it takes an aggregate of polls and extrapolates it into electoral college votes via the magic of maths. It's been pretty accurate with the 04 and 06 elections too.
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
The way most people bring up their children is by treating them like they are stupid and cannot make a decision to save their lives. Then at some magic age they are supposed to be "responsible."
It doesn't work that way.
It takes a lot of time and energy to raise a responsible kid. You have to model the behavior you want.
We threw choices at our kids as soon as they could point.
Hold up three pairs of pants. Which one?
Two kinds of juice, Which one?
We had the laugh rule which I think worked wonders. If the child could come up with an incredible explanation why they did something and it made us laugh, they were excused.
This taught them to think about what they were doing before they did it. It provided impulse control. They developed huge vocabularies and debate skills. We had amazing discussions on right and wrong. Eventually we just talked about things in advance.
The older they get the more decisions. We never had to say "if you want to try this sport you have to do it six months before you can quit." We didn't make arbitrary rules.
The religious far right uses the fear of God to make kids behave. It can work for a while but if you have sex and God doesn't strike you dead, it doesn't work any more.
There is also the issue that in small towns all there is to do is have sex. The more the parents push not having it the more seductive it seems. When a kid wants to get back at their parents, what better way is there?
The Palin kid should have been taught to make GOOD decisions. She wasn't. Having a child as a teen is not a good decision for anyone.
Making her get married and keep the child is yet another travesty no matter what Grover or whatever his name is mother says.
Fundies see that a young woman is paying for her sin by having to keep the baby. They are against having birth control so that the young person cannot get away with that particular "sin."
The boys in the situation get away free of course.
It is all very sad.
The Momster
__________________ A friend will bail you out of jail,
a true friend will help you hide the body...: )
), it's the Electoral Votes that counts.
Linear Mode
