I didn't get to Quick Takes last week because I was busy preparing for Elanor's 7th birthday! We had a small celebration at home, with homemade pizza and birthday cake, and she was delighted to receive The Muppet Movie and Muppet Treasure Island on DVD (ever since we saw The Muppets, she's been in love with Kermit and the gang).
We spent the entire next day at our local zoo, along with her aunt, uncle, and cousin, and she had her cousin (also her best friend) spend the night as well.
I can't believe my eldest is 7 years old already! *sniff*
My maternity leave is almost up. I go back to work on Monday. *sigh* I don't want to leave my baby but I have no choice.
I didn't watch the debate the other night, but I did see the clip of Newt Gingrich skewering John King.
Now, I'm not a Newt fan; some of his political stances aside, the fact that he's a serial adulterer seriously puts me off. I get that he's allegedly had a genuine conversion of heart, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to put him in an incredibly stressful job that isn't going to help his struggles against temptation. He's already admitted that the reasons he's cheated before were because he was working too hard and loved America too darn much. Well, Newt, that's exactly the position you'll be in as President, so....
However. This article made me realize something... it takes two to cheat. Remember, Marianne Gingrich cheated with Newt when he was a married man, so she's just as guilty of adultery. Maybe she didn't know he was married when their relationship started, but she should have broken it off the minute she found out (actually, she shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage at all, but I digress...), and she certainly shouldn't have been surprised when the adulterer she married cheated on her as well. Married men couldn't cheat if they didn't have someone willing to cheat with them. It takes two to tango.
But now ABC is asking us to take the word of an one adulterer over the other. Newt claims it's not true that he asked for an "open marriage," and it may not be. Or maybe it is. Regardless, this was back in 1999, and I can tell you that back in 1999 I was a Democrat who didn't favor making abortion illegal, had no problem with contraception, and supported homosexual "marriage." I'm not proud of the views I held then, and perhaps Newt isn't either.
Anyway. I still favor Santorum for the nomination, but Newt has risen slightly in my estimation based on his answer last night. Is it something that should be addressed at some point? Yes, especially in the context of Newt's support for the sanctity of marriage. But the first question of the debate, and using what's essentially a tabloid expose to do it? No. Inappropriate.
Here's another good political blog post worth reading. Caelum et Terra asks Obama supporters:
How would you have reacted in 2008 if any Republican ran promising to do the following?
(1) Codify indefinite detention into law;
(2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process;
(3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens;
(4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets;
(5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible;
(6) enter and prosecute such a war;
(7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports;
(8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots;
(9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy;
(10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits;
(11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries;
(12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed);
(13) reauthorize the Patriot Act;
(14) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.
Anyway. In non-politics-related news, my grandma Violet is coming for her annual visit! She'll arrive January 28 and leave March 8. Hooray!
The Phoenix March for Life is this weekend! Last year's was a lot of fun, so I'm really looking forward to it! Stay tuned for pictures and a report next week.
Also stay tuned for a new blog post on Sunday, as I'm participating in the 2nd Annual "Ask Them What They Mean By 'Choice'" blog event.
For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be respectful and courteous, and I will reciprocate.
Note to commenters: sometimes long comments, or comments that contain links, are sent to the comment moderation folder (or sometimes the spam folder). If you comment and it doesn't show up right away, chances are it went to comment moderation or spam. Rather than re-posting your comment, please e-mail me and ask me to check these folders. Thanks!