The republican theory of abstinence... Fool proof I say. Please teach me creationism oh wise Palin.

What will be interesting to see is if Sarah Palin becomes more moderate in her beliefs as a result of this. The more socially conservative a household, the more the kids will rebel, and Palin would foist this worldview on America as a whole.

I read about a girl whose father was a Baptist minister. She went to college a virgin; by the end of her first year, she estimated she’d had at least 400 sexual encounters. I hope her parents taught her about protection, but I bet they didn’t.

The socially conservative mindset of repressing sexuality at the very time it expresses itself most strongly is absolutely insane, and it’s led to a this woman, who would lead America, not even being able to help her own daughter be empowered with the safe-sex information that would ensure a better future for herself than teenage motherhood.

Why didn’t she marry the father before this? Isn’t that what they usually do in evangelical families? Are they making her marry now simply because her mother is the VP nominee. Wasn’t being the pregnant daughter of a Governor enough to induce marriage?

According to Republicans I’ve been reading, this is joyous news. Humanizing her more. Unmarried teen daughter sexing it up with her boyfriend and now pregnant, always great news, right? Another Republican in the fold. She won’t kill her baby, as every Democrat would want to, they think.

Are these Republicans passing the crack pipe with Ted Haggard?

I see Palin has already developed a critics’ corner. One one hand, and rather suddenly, we find a woman appearing in politics who gets things done. Her state thinks well of what she has done in politics.

On the other hand, critical comments here suggested literal mindedness. One example is what she said in the past; ”If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me”. Now it is true that the phrase ”under God” in the pledge of allegiance was not created by the same men who wrote the constitution of the USA, but was added later.

However the spirit of her statement is easily understood. -If it was put in long ago and has served many for a long time, then I have no reason to disagree with it and will uphold it- The phrase itself represents a spirit, too. A recognition that we, the people, might not be all that there is in the physical universe.

It amuses me that critics are uniformly, literal minded.