Palin Revisionism

I edited my previous post, “The Palin Paradox,” after seeing that (a) I was getting a lot of hits from a right-wing blog called “Eagle Forum Alaska,” and (b) said blog pulled their post. That post championed Governor Palin’s embracing abstinence-only education. My comment (now redacted because of the broken link) pointed out that Governor Palin wholeheartedly embraced the Bush policies on not teaching any sex education other than not having any (my definition, not theirs).

We all know the best way to do quiet people is through denial, right? C’mon, stand up for your values! The Big Lie won’t work, since the Eagle’s posting data is found in many other places. And the Big Distraction didn’t work, as Gustav fizzled out.

The brave thing to do, the moral thing to do, is to honestly champion what you, and your governor, believe in. So put the page back up, where we can all read it!

The Palin Paradox

The conundrum of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is a great snapshot of modern American views on sex education:

  1. “Good girls” do. (Are there “bad girls?”)
  2. Lust trumps sex ed
  3. Parents, even governors, can’t stop kids from having sex
  4. And, of course, pregnancy is a rational consequence of sex!

I’m pleased that Bristol’s parents are behind her. And that the father has (a) stepped forward and (b) will do the “right” thing and marry her. It’s a great lesson for parents that would otherwise distance themselves from the little trollop (their POV, not mine), or do some other non-linear thing.

I’d like conservative or religious readers to think for a moment, and then comment on the following question: how can sex education and/or policy be changed so as to decrease the chances that other daughters of religious families get pregnant? At what point is it a better choice to explain prophylactics (physical or chemical) over the chance of an unplanned pregnancy?.