I'm sorry but...

...if Governor Palin gets to use her family and family experience as a qualification for the Vice Presidency, her family's flaws become fair game for criticism in the campaign. One cannot fairly have it both ways.

A point of rhetoric

In the recent discussions of Sarah Palin's youngest child and now of the pregnancy of her teenage daughter there have been numerous iterations of the "courage" of Palin in "choosing to have her child though he has Downs Syndrome—we will leave aside the deep insult that this is to people with Downs, many of whom I have counted as friends—and know of the "pride" that her family has in their daughter for "deciding" to keep the child. While this rhetoric may serve Palin and McCain well, it is utterly confused. Palin believes—or claims to—that abortion is immoral, it is the taking of an innocent life. We call the taking of an innocent life murder. 

So, if Palin really believes what she claims to, her rhetoric and that of her supporters makes no sense. We don't speak of the courage of someone who doesn't commit murder when it might be more convenient so to do. We don't speak of pride in the non-murderer when they decide not to murder. It may be that she and her daughter are praiseworthy for doing what is morally required, some might say, in a society where many do not, but only exactly in the same way as one is when they refrain from any other immorality. It is not as if she has done the supererogatory.

Why I am a bad liberal (and gay man)

It seems to me that Governor Palin is on the wrong side of almost every issue, not just those affecting women, but those that are of the utmost importance for America. I think it is ridiculous that she believes that creationism should be taught in science classes—perhaps in some sort of humanities class, sure—and I think her place on any ticket is nothing short of calculating pandering and, ultimately, dangerous to the Republic, should she succeed to the Presidency

However, abortion is the one issue that I don't see her as being on the wrong side of. I've never seen how (except, perhaps in cases of rape and where the mother's life is in danger), abortion is a woman's issue and I wish that the Democratic party and liberals in general could at the very least remove it from being the central issue discussed anytime women are mentioned. Or, they might actually have a rational discussion about it, but I fear that this is unlikely to happen. 

Of course, someone might see my thoughts here as just a holdover from Catholicism. But that itself is a further trivialization of what is an important moral issue. 

I don't quite understand

Why is it that a particular flavor of evangelical Christian marks his car with logos and words signifying "not of this world"? I get that Jesus said to store up one's treasures in heaven and not in this world, but then it seems like marking your Lexus with a sticker saying that you are not of this world might actually show that you are of this world.

There needs to be a word for the use or utterance of a phrase that demonstrates the falsity of the phrase, sort of like "performative" means a phrase like "I hereby pronounce you man and wife" the utterance of which makes them man and wife. 

Mysticism on the cheap

St Teresa was transfixed by the love of Jesus and flew into ecstasy. The Buddha sat under a tree and saw the truth of all life. I was walking Mateo tonight and became convinced of the truth of Lewis-style possible worlds semantics. Mystic experience just isn't what it used to be. But I guess I have to take what I can get.

More things I love for no really good reason

I just have to love it when a bicycling woman passing Mateo and me on our walk, looks at him and says, "Oh my God, it's a horse!"

An argument, merely for consideration

1. Traditional marriage is defined not just as the union of a man and a woman, but rather as the union of a man and a woman with different roles for the purpose of the formation of a family, i.e., for the purpose of procreation and/or the raising of children. Those who claim that the traditional definition does not include this notion of child-rearing either do not know their tradition or are being disingenuous.

2. The civil notion of marriage contains no requirement or expectation that children will be raised within the union. Though it may have at one time, it no longer does. This is evident from the fact that civil marriage licenses are issued to the naturally and artificially sterile and those beyond child-bearing age and from the fact that not even consummation of the union is required for a marriage to be considered legally valid at this point in time.

3. There is no expectation in the civil notion of marriage, unlike the traditional notion, that the husband and wife have necessarily different roles. Rather, civil marriage is looked at as a contract between two equal partners. Witness the notion of community property and the gradual erosion of notions such as alimony.

4. Moreover, many religious groups which defend fail to consider many civil marriages as true marriages. For example, Roman Catholics do not recognize the marriages of divorcés as true marriages.

5. Thus traditional marriage is not the same thing as civil marriage. In fact, "marriage" is not univocal.

6. In conclusion, the granting of civil marriage licenses to same sex couples cannot harm traditional marriage directly nor change the definition of "traditional marriage" since they are two very different things.