Hypothetically – and this is purely hypothetical because of course I would never mock a topic widely considered to be a social taboo – let's say I photoshopped a picture of Cindy McCain holding Sarah Palin's youngest child with a caption such as "OMG!
buy amitriptyline online jersey-hemp.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/amitriptyline.html no prescription
I HAS A TARD!" That would pretty much make me the worst person on Earth, right? It would be so mean that it might actually cause me problems beyond the internet – for example, my students, employer, and potential employers could find it deeply offensive and use it as (justified) grounds for filing formal complaints against me, refusing to renew my contract, or not hiring me in the first place, respectively. And God forbid I ever ran for public office; my insensitivity to the developmentally disabled would be a disaster of campaign-ending proportions (unless I ran as a Republican, in which case IOKIYAR takes over). In short, I would be a bad person and widely recognized as such.
Let's say, on the other hand, that I was the Vice Presidential nominee of a major political party rather than a guy who makes less than your bus driver but has internet access. Say that instead of making a jpeg image disrespecting Downs Syndrome I used a child with DS as a prop during a nationally-televised address, passing him or her from person to person so that everyone present could hold him (facing outward) and smile into the camera for a moment or two. Let's say that, rather than calling said child a tard, I cynically exploited him or her to not-so-subtly communicate with a core constituency. And then I followed it by asserting, with all the phony indignation I could muster, that of course I wasn't using a tard as a prop, I was merely expressing my love for my child (and allowing the wife of the nominee, who I'd known for about 4 days, do the same).
One of the two scenarios I have described here would get me fired. The other would, in part, qualify me for the highest office in the land. Lesson learned; it's OK to cynically exploit the handicapped for political gain, but not to use insulting (and hilarious) language when describing them.
Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, learned this lesson well.
buy xenical online jersey-hemp.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/xenical.html no prescription
His political career ended when he described his staff thusly during a speech: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent." That ended his political career.
It didn't end his career that, as Secretary, he quintupled the acres of Federal land leased to the coal mining industry. That he attempted to eliminate the Land Water Conservation Fund. That he said about his attitude toward conservation "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." That he described his mission as "We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber." That he took the most aggressive measures to limit Federal regulatory power over environmental issues than anyone before or since. That he leased, by his own estimation, "a billion acres" of coastal land for oil development. That he suggested that if problems with environmentalists "cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used."
It's OK to be the worst person on the planet, to be a Cabinet officer in the White House while suggesting that a large group of Americans should be murdered for disagreeing with you. It's OK to occupy one of the highest offices in the land despite being almost cartoonishly unqualified and ignorant.
Using foul language, though, is a bridge too far.
J. Dryden says:
I hadn't realized this until just now, but that DS kid is Checkers. Nixon: "Love my dog, love me, overlook my guilt." Palin: "Love my tard, love me, overlook my many many shortcomings as a candidate." How nice for the kid that he'll never really quite appreciate the degree to which his disability is being used by his caregivers as a political gimmick. Brava, Ms. Palin. Brava.
Dustin says:
If it were a "normal" baby, they would still be passing it around… it's a new born. It's not every day a vice presidential candidate has an infant of any kind. C'mon guys.
Liz says:
Dustin, if Sarah Palin had decided not to abort a "normal" baby, chances are she wouldn't be a vice presidential candidate.
Michael says:
IOKIYAR?
I need to get the annotated version of this website…
;-)
BK says:
I disagree Liz. Look at her record and her comments – she's as right-wing and proud of it someone can be. The fact she's attractive (in as much as she's better looking than many elected women in office) and didn't have an abortion when she learned she was pregnant with a child with downs are icing on the cake – not the attributes (how sick is it to call them that) that got her the nod.
peggy says:
Michael: It's OK If You're A Republican.
BK: I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe you should tell Palin to start showing off her actual attributes instead, then?
Dustin says:
Liz,
I agree with BK. The DS child was simply the "icing on the cake". She would have been the choice regardless.
BK says:
Peggy –
I'm not saying she has any *real* attributes other than being the pin-up girl for the mouth-breathing right. She's slightly better looking and substantially less purpousfully offensive than Coulter.
The fact she has two-X chromosomes and comes from the state with ANWAR inside it and wants to drill it like a 17 year-old at a homecoming after party while making sure gays can't marry and that abstinence and creationism take over for logic and reason made her the pick.
Kati says:
On Monday, Sept 8th the New York Times ran another article about her, but I found this one to be particularly interesting. It talked a lot about her pregnancy…about how she hid it from everyone but her husband until her third trimester and also gave a speech which leaking amniotic fluid. The part that blew my mind, though, was the quote from her 14 daughter in the delivery room. I don't have the specific quote with me right now, but basically it said 'her daughter looked at her new brother and quickly noticed his condition. The 14 year old asked her mother, "Mom, it looks like he has down syndrome. Why didn't you tell us?"' She couldn't even tell her own children their new sibling had DS out of fear of political retribution, yet she can parade him around now?