The Odd Lies of Andrew Sullivan, Ctd.

Alert the media!  Mercede Johnston (Levi Johnston's sister) has a new blog! Levi, you will recall, is the baby-daddy of Tripp, the infant son of Bristol Palin. Andrew Sullivan, naturally, has gone over every post with a fine-tooth comb, looking for confirmation of his interesting theories of Trig's parentage.

So far, no success. But he did find this! Independent confirmation that Sarah Palin called her son a retard!

Except, there is no "independent confirmation" of anything except that Mercede says that Levi says that Sarah Palin said that. In other words, she said, he said, she said. I sent an email to Andrew:

I realize that you take every opportunity to criticize Sarah Palin, but what you have said in this post is just not true:

"So we now have independent confirmation that Palin, ... referred to her own Down Syndrome son - literally - as "retarded" in front of him at home."

I agree that the kerfuffle over Rahm Emanuel's use of the word was stupid and unnecessary, although I very much dislike the use of "retard", "retarded", or "short bus" as an insult, since these are descriptive of a disabling medical condition, like "crip" or "spaz".

However, "independent confirmation" would imply that Mercede herself heard Palin call Trig "retarded" (which in itself is not inappropriate, my 24-year-old son is also retarded and I describe him that way to strangers so that they will have an idea how they can interact and converse with him when they meet him for the first time).

What Mercede said in her blog post was, AS YOU DIRECTLY QUOTED, "No I have not personally heard her use that term, but I do remember my brother twice coming home and telling me about it." So what you have is "independent confirmation" that Levi said that Sarah used the term, and nothing more. Whether you believe Levi is a reliable source or not is irrelevant. The assertion by Mercede that her brother said it does not rise to the level of "independent confirmation" by Mercede (whose reliability as a source, as someone also hostile to Palin, could also be questioned).

I have given you somewhat of a pass on Palin coverage, as some of your fears seem justified, but I really think you should update this post to remove the phrase "independent confirmation." It is false and unfair as originally posted.

I am eagerly awaiting Andrew's retraction, as we all know that he is a scrupulously fair "journalist" in matters related to Sarah Palin.

Bunnies

We have a cat that we adopted as a young kitten from a farm family with which we are acquainted. He was neutered at about four months of age but never adapted well to being an indoor cat. In spite of being neutered he was always urinating on our belongings and trying to get outside. We finally gave up & let him go out whenever he wants. He will probably be killed by a car eventually but better a shortened, happy life than a miserable, confined life of resentment towards us for restricting his freedom.

Anyway, he has become a mighty hunter in the course of his outdoor sojourns. He will frequently bring a dead bird or mouse and leave it on our back steps as sort of a gift to us. This would be fine and we would appreciate it in the spirit in which it was intended, except for the fact that we let our dogs out the back door every morning. If Mr. Toto has left a gift it is inevitably brought inside by one of the dogs. I can usually tell by their furtive countenance upon reentering the house, but my husband is not always so attentive to their moods. Once in the house, Toto's gift will be shared between the members of our little menagerie for recreational purposes until one of the fun-killing humans discovers it and throws it in the trash.

Recently Mr. Toto has taken to killing baby bunnies. He also seems to enjoy eviscerating them. It is a macabre business indeed to pry the still-warm and bloody corpse of what was once a cute and fluffy baby rabbit from the jaws of our canine friends. At one time I would have been mortified by even the thought of this, but apparently I have become rather hardened. At this time my only goal is to prevent fur and blood from getting on the carpets. I do feel rather sad about the killings but our neighborhood has an abundance of fertile Leporidae, so I doubt they will be missed.

Is Andrew Sullivan a Misogynist?

As my readers know, I am a faithful reader of Andrew Sullivan. Not because I agree with him, mind you, but because I am fascinated with the mental gyrations he undertakes to justify his somewhat flexible positions.

Sullivan is notorious for his conspiracy theories about the birth of Trig Palin. He has now gained additional notoriety for his insistence that Elena Kagan publicly declare her sexual preference (or "emotional orientation" as he now describes it).

To use one of Sullivan's favorite phrases, "in my view," Andrew is highly suspicious of powerful, authoritative women. I can't understand what else would motivate his dislike of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and now Elena Kagan. I do, however, expect his view of Kagan will evolve into affection and admiration once it becomes clear that Obama (who can do no wrong Link) fully supports her.

To illustrate my "view", I here provide examples of Andrew's double standard concerning women, education, and elitism.
This post of his included the notorious "softball" picture of Kagan: Link.

"... where has she experienced the brunt of the law on ordinary people, as the president has described one of his criteria for the court? I guess if you regard Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree as victims of the world, you could make a case for her empathy. But apart from that? Not much that I can see.

Where is the struggle in her life story...? The NYT is very keen to let us know that the Upper West Side where she grew up was not as tony as it is today. Er, that's about it. ... Not a single anecdote in her life-story would be out of place in a Rhodes Scholar application - and I mean that as damning."

On the other hand, here is a post of his commenting on David Cameron, the newly elected UK prime minister: Link

"And here is where he reminds me a little of Obama. Class in Britain is what race is in America. Cameron never denied his past and even engaged in some of its more obnoxious practices. But he loves his country, and endured great prejudice, as well as great privilege, because of his class. Yes, Etonians can be victims too. He both owned his identity - all of it - and yet sought to transcend it."

I notice a bit of a difference there in his views; what could possibly account for that?

And here, he comments on Sarah Palin's educational background: Link

"Memo to Kristol: you may think Palin is sophisticated enough to grasp the high-level fantasies and abstractions that you have devised in your own head to defend the indefensible. But she isn't, buddy. She has a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho, and went to several colleges in several years. She thinks Leo Strauss is a brand of jeans. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. Remember: she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and heard about the surge 'on the news'.

This is your lipsticked pitbull, buddy. Own it. And all the immense incuriosity, minimal education, and fact-resistant ambition that comes with it." 

How can we explain Andrew Sullivan's diverse opinions on "elitism", class, and educational background? I leave this as an open question for the reader to contemplate.

Here is a picture of Andrew Sullivan arranging flowers. Because "in my view," all men who arrange flowers are gay, and all men who are gay arrange flowers - just as Andrew seems to believe that all women who play softball are lesbians, and all women who are lesbians play softball. Not that Andrew or I believe in stereotyping homosexuals or anything.

Where's that rope again?

Ticks

In the Midwest, ticks can be a problem for dog owners during the months from April until late October. They are disgusting little creatures which fasten themselves to your dog, and then feed on its blood until they become so bloated they can no longer hold on. At that point they fall off, and drag their nasty, swollen bodies across the floor until you find them or they are able to hide under your furniture.

The current state of the federal government reminds me of a giant tick. A tick does not have the goal of killing its host, but a large tick on a small animal can cause severe damage due to its consumption of the host's very life-blood. In such a way our government is now sucking the life-blood out of our nation's economy, as in my illustration:

New insight from Andrew Sullivan

Today Andrew Sullivan employs the title, "Sacrificing Freedom to Gain More" with a link to a post by Hilary Bok Enhancing Freedom By Government Regulations.

The gist of her argument is that the safety and security afforded us by governmental control of certain areas of our lives increases our "freedom" despite its restriction of personal choice. Her example is traffic laws, which serve to make our collective driving experience safer and easier.

Disregarding the Orwellian notion that restrictions make us freer, the "traffic laws" example is most unfortunate, considering recent studies of the elimination of traffic regulations in certain areas. See this article, for example:

Link to article

Andrew Sullivan's leftward slide is not news to anyone who reads him regularly, but his latest epiphany that governmental restrictions increase liberty is, to put it kindly, "eccentric".

I view governmental mandates and intrusion into my personal health decisions somewhat differently.

As Samuel Adams once said, "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Crouch down, Andrew, and lick the hand that grants you the "right" to purchase health insurance, which, should you choose not to exercise it, will earn you a penalty from the IRS. Thankfully Andrew is not yet one of our countrymen, lest we should have to disown him and his refreshing new notions of "liberty".

The Bad Thing

I believe that every person has a "bad thing" that they hide from the rest of the world, something so awful that their own mother would hate them, if they were to reveal it.

I claim ownership of many "bad things" although I would rather not confess them here.

Whether your "bad thing" be sexual acts or thoughts, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, racism, dishonesty, or any other sin, God assures us that the grace attributed to us through faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for our atonement.

We are also told that even without the "bad things" in our lives, our righteous works are sorely lacking. Only grace can cover our sin - our good works are "filthy rags" in God's eyes.

If today you are afraid of death, I present here an easy solution. Receiving God's grace and forgiveness does not require you to stop sinning, for we as human beings are incapable of that, and our Creator is fully aware of our sinful nature. You and I need only to confess our helplessness in the face of temptation, and acknowledge before God that we accept Jesus' suffering as atonement for our sin.

I hope that my readers have a blessed Easter and spend a few moments contemplating the rolling away of the stone from the tomb where he was laid, and the rending of the curtain in the Temple separating worshipers from the Holy of Holies.

2010 Easter Art

Here is my Easter art for this year. There is a fuzzy yellow ducky with a pink basket full of colored eggs, standing in front the silhouette of a cross, framed by a dramatic sunet scene (a picture I took at "our" lake a few years ago, where the sunsets were often epic).

The ducky represents the lack of religion or the lightweight religiosity of the usual observance of Easter in the modern world. He is captured by the vision of the cross, which gives Easter its true meaning to believers in Christ.

If you are a non-believer, please take a minute to contemplate the meaning of the cross. Jesus surrendered himself voluntarily to its suffering and did not ask God to spare him. He experienced death as separation from God, a profound spiritual agony that we cannot begin to comprehend. And he did it for each one of us weak and fallible human beings who would follow in his footsteps, in order to grant us freedom from death and condemnation.

Thank you Lord, for sending your Son to endure this sacrifice in my place.