Ahhhh, can you imagine the pressure this young woman is feeling right now?
She has just had the entire WORLD know that she is pregnant, out of wedlock, to socially-conservative, albethey* non-denominational Christians. She made a mistake, got pregnant, her mom got nominated for the vice-presidency, and now the product of her sweaty lust is global headlines. I feel for her, I really do.
What I can't stand are two things:
#1 Why in the hell this didn't get announced prior and along with the nomination? It weakens credibility, etc. (I'm voting for Obama, but I think full disclosure of something like this is still respectful of the electorate).
#2 Why, oh why, is she marrying the guy? Why is the child not being given up for adoption? I would venture that it has everything to do with mom's politicking. This is the 19th Century, or even the 1950's. There are many, many, loving couples who would adopt. Rather, we're going to saddle a girl to the first boy she layed (presumably), and the child into a loveless marriage (I'm supposing); Mac's Daily Miscellany hereby goes on record that this marriage will not see 2018. Now, these are major stereotypes, but children who have children make everyone better off when they (not the parents) are presented with the adoption option and choose it. I have three children of my own, so I can fathom making the altruistic decision to give one up for adoption if it were in the best interest of the child. Money won't be a problem for the girl, but she is now going to suffer from the retarding weight of a child; college will be harder, work will be harder, her youth will disappear as she devotes herself to raising a child that I would wager she didn't want--but will still love.
Her parents assertion that they are "proud" of her decision to keep the baby, and "proud" to be grandparents is so f***ing ridiculous, I can't stand it. Pride is a sin (so is swearing; lay off me). "Happy" certainly, but pride gets wrapped up in so many thing, so many negatives that I can't stomach anyone mentioning how proud they are of someone else's egregiously poor decisions, especially politicians; especially people within a heartbeat (as we keep hearing from the media) of the presidency. It's that same ole petit-bourgeois attitude that sickens me. The people whose net-worth is more than $500k, but less than $3million are the worst. We had a man speak in our ward (church) yesterday. He drove a Cadillac; his suit was impeccable; he is a well-known business owner. He gave a lesson on priesthood keys, took out his keychain to illustrate a point, and noting the paucity of keys on his ring, said, "I don't own very much." Ahhh, the old "I'm poor," from people of substantial means.
This never ceases to amaze/bug me. The petit-bourgeois always call themselves poor or claim they don't have much. I'm no Marxist, but the precarios in Barrio Mexico and Leon XIII were filled with people who could claim truly to not "own much."
I feel bad for Miss Palin. Her mom is embarrassing the hell out of her on a global scale.
*I know this isn't a word