Thursday's Child ... has far to go ... (0nm10wn2feet) wrote,
Thursday's Child ... has far to go ...
0nm10wn2feet

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Time for a rant...

Brace yourselves, people, I need to vent...

Yesterday, I did my once-a-week catching up on some current events. That usually consists of clicking on the CNN Headlines that appear in my inbox every day. I merrily surf through CNN, reading things that pique my interest or that I hadn't already heard about (from the other newshound in the house, my daughter).

Yesterday's news also brought tidings of the recent appearance of Bristol Palin's "baby daddy" on the Tyra Banks show. ZOMG... and I thought the lunacy would drop off the map once Palin lost the VP bid. Apparently not, though, mostly because there are still a number of people out there who think she's the best thing since the Gutenberg Press allowed the common folk to read the freakin' bible. Which, between me and thee, probably wasn't such a good thing, primarily because it fostered all of the odd, evangelical off-shoots of Christianity that (in my opinion) now threaten many people's way of life. But, as usual, I digress.

I have to admit, I am still entranced by the train wreck that is Sarah Palin, as well as her supporters and hangers-on. I don't think I have ever seen a Presidential campaign so completely and thoroughly derailed by one person in my entire life. Well, there was Barry Goldwater, but that was a l-o-n-g time ago. Oh, wait, I forgot about George McGovern! Okay, there were a LOT of campaigns that got derailed by single people or issues... but this was the most spectacular in recent history. Seriously.

Palin's nomination to run as McCain's Vice-Presidential candidate, though, did have at least one positive effect. It gave rise the belief that one did not need fluidity, polish, or oratory skills of any sort to become a candidate for the second-highest office in this country. One certainly did not need to run a straight-forward, issues-oriented campaign. All one needs do is espouse a belief (or two) that many secretly harbor (but would never dare to admit in polite company), rail against one's opponent for not even considering one's belief, and make life miserable for any number of other people connected to one's opponent. AND, this is the biggie, do it under the guise of PATRIOTISM, GOD, and FAMILY.

It never fails to irritate the beejeebers out of me when people haul out the flag, the bible, or their extended family in order to prove their supposed superiority to another. See me not giving a shit? Yeah, that's right. I have a bible (even if I don't read it), I have a couple of flags around here somewhere (even if I don't have a flagpole), and I have a family... and I tend to strongly take issue with anyone who assumes that theirs is automatically better than mine. I get even more hyper when said 'someone' parades their family, and their family's foibles, around before a national audience while implying they are still holier than mine.

Which brings us to the Palin family. And the Johnston family. Let's not forget, it DOES take two to 'tango' - and to produce one of those lives that the rabid right is so fond of telling us we must preserve at all costs. This will not be popular, but I have this sneaking suspicion that they disapprove of abortion because it robs them of more mindless drones who would vote in their favor. Honest to GODDESS... yes, I'm being horribly elitist, but have you SEEN the interview Banks did with the Johnston family?? Holy CARP. Poster family for the GOP... or they would have been if they hadn't pissed Sarah off. Instead, what you get is pure 'Springer.' Yet there are STILL people who are so gaga over Sarah Palin that they feel she's being "courageous" in defending her daughter's 'right' to deny the baby's father his rights.

So, the Johnstons are ticked cuz Bristol (Sarah) won't let them take little Tripp (what the HELL kind of name is that for a kid, and who decided that one?) out of the mansion to go slumming. Okay, they didn't say it that way, but it sure sounds like it. In true Springer-esque fashion, Levi Johnston's sister has a little feud going with poor, little, abused Bristol, so Bristol decided that she didn't want her baby around their house. Supposedly, Bristol's little urchin could be unduly influenced by the "white trash" that hangs out with Mercede. And what kind of name is Mercede?? Even the damn car has the "s" on the end. Since "mom" called her "Cede" (pronounced "Say-dee") during the interview, I have this horrible feeling that this was mom's way of uniquely naming the child "Sadie" without it looking stupid so her peers wouldn't trash her for it.

ANYway, the whole thing was so... so... Springer-ish, I couldn't tear myself away from the YouTube videos. I sat there in complete, horrified, fascination watching the whole damn thing. WOW. First of all, who the hell stuck that stupid knit vest on dear Levi? And then left his damn shirt untucked underneath it??? That just looked... unkempt, to say the LEAST. Then we have Mercede, complete with overly styled hair, ultra-short skirt, and her brother's name tattooed on her?? Whoa. That's definitely strange. I've never met siblings who were THAT close in their teen years. Creepy... very creepy... if you ask me.

The piéce de rèsistance was mom, though. So much eye makeup that you couldn't tell what color her eyes might have been... she looked like a freakin' raccoon, for pity's sake. Didn't that show have makeup people who might have at least warned the woman that she looked ridiculous? Listening to the poor woman, one starts to understand why the Palins would want to 'distance' themselves from this particular 'offshoot' of their family tree. First, there was her admission that she wept tears of JOY upon hearing that her seventeen year-old son was going to become a father. That was informative, to say the very least. Joy?? That virtual children were about to welcome a BABY? In my mind, that's a BIG W.T.F.?!

Then, her response to Banks' question about how the estrangement from her first grandchild makes Levi's mom feel... she's a PART grandma?? Nah, sorry m'dear, you're a COMPLETE grandma - just on the wrong side, obviously, from the Palins point of view. And she "don't get no pitchers [pictures] or nuthin'?" Holy wow... horrible grammar aside, one sort of begins to understand from whence this poor, juvenile, Alaskan boy sprang. Whew. Just... whew.

Now, for those who aren't 'in the loop' on this whole circus sideshow, Levi, the erstwhile "baby daddy," dropped out of school in tenth grade. He has no job, no skills, and no visible means of support, much less means of supporting his child. Of course, one would assume (although one hates to, since the old saying probably holds true in this case) that the Palins are amply able to support little Tripp in the manner to which they've all become accustomed, especially with Mama Sarah's rise to fame. That's very nice for Tripp and Bristol, but where does that leave Levi?

Even assuming (which is dangerous, at best) that Levi wants to provide for his child like the man he might become in the future, it leaves Levi on the outside, looking in. As long as he does not contribute to the child's overall welfare, he probably has little chance of being a major influence in this baby's life. Yes, he might find a lawyer that would be happy to represent him in family court - after all, the publicity will be fabu, at least until 2012. He might be able to successfully sue for visitation, but I seriously doubt that he would be granted any sort of 'joint custody' of the wee beastie. Levi's mama, having her own legal issues at the moment, has about the chance of a snowflake in a warm place (which, btw, Alaska is NOT) of having any unsupervised visitation with her grandbaby. All in all, this promises to become an even more highly angst-ridden, traumatic drama than it already is - for all concerned - not the least of which is poor, little Tripp (what the heck are they gonna use as a nickname, "Tripper?" "Trippy?" *snort*).

Thus, after watching the whole Banks interview debacle, and reading the statement issued by the Palin spokesperson, one is left with several interesting conclusions; the first of which is that ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION DOES NOT WORK. This is a STELLAR case in point. A truly cautionary tale that any mother can use, most effectively, on any gender child in order to SCARE them into SAFE SEX. Then again, I have this horrible suspicion that, like abortion, the rabid right is not interested in the safety and well-being of their youth. They are more concerned with BREEDING MORE OF THEM. Isn't that what it looks like?? Seriously? The more 'abstinence only' vows that fail miserably, the more abortions that are prevented, the more automatons the fanatics have that will bend to their cause. I don't generally espouse conspiracy theories, but this one sure smells funny to me!!

The next conclusion one draws is that "Intelligent Design" is a fallacy. Creationism does NOT work for me in this case, primarily because these two families resemble warring spider monkey factions more than they remind me of the human beings with whom *I* associate. I mean, c'mon! Watch any nature show and you see the same angst and drama played out over and over again, across species, even! The only difference I can see, so far, between these people and, say, wolves, is that the humans in this case have the power to communicate verbally (however feebly) with members of their own species. And they still claim that humans were created superior to the animals? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Lastly, between the ongoing attention paid to the Palins and the ongoing, increasingly psychotic babbling of right-wingers like Michele Bachmann (US Congresswoman (R) Minnesota), Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele, the Grand Old Party is swiftly becoming just the OLD PARTY. Y,know, the "old party" that one might have belonged to back when one thought that they were all about less government and helping business grow? I freely admit that I've always been more of a Democrat, sometimes leaning toward Independent, but I have voted for Republicans in the past. I tend to vote for the person that I feel will best represent me and my views. Of late, witnessing the spectacularly breath-taking nuclear meltdown of the GOP, I now wonder if that's still a good idea. From where I'm sitting, we are either rapidly heading toward a ONE party system, or we are on that same slippery slope that the Romans found themselves sliding down when their empire fell. Either way, I find that scary.

Okay, that REALLY got away from me, but it bugged me half to death as I was trying to get to sleep last night. Unless I manage to forget about it, tomorrow's rant may have to do with those that I view as the scariest people in American politics at the moment. Hopefully, for anyone foolish enough to read this drivel, I'll forget by then! In the meantime, apologies to all for this one... I think we can all agree, it's a doozy!!
;D
~~me~~

Tags: abstinence, politics, rant, republicans, sarah palin
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 18 comments