No Bristol-Levi wedding—what a surprise!
Last September 5th I wrote:
If the above rendition [my summary of an article in the National Enquirer] is accurate, there is reason to believe that Bristol has not agreed to marry Levi, since she fought against her mother’s earlier proposal that she marry him, and the story gives no indication that she changed her mind. In other words, far from agreeing to marry, she has refused to marry. Therefore the announced wedding is a fiction, and my previous skeptical characterization of the wedding as the “supposed” wedding was correct. Levi and Bristol do not want and do not plan to marry.Today, March 11, 2009, the Associated Press reported :
Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, the teenage daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, have broken off their engagement, he said Wednesday, about 2 1/2 months after the couple had a baby. Johnston, 19, told The Associated Press that he and 18-year-old Bristol Palin mutually decided “a while ago” to end their relationship.Now, going back to September again, do you remember the criticisms I took (some of it angry) for, among other things, my skeptical view of the announced wedding to be, about which many people were gushing with approval? For example, this exchange on September 3:
Mark J. writes:On October 20, I noted that Bristol was still not married. In commenting on a Sarah Palin speech in Colorado in which (to my cheers) she criticized Barack Obama’s socialist tendencies as identified by Joe the Plumber, I continued:
Also, just before Palin’s speech, while Hank Williams, Jr. was singing about “the John McCain tradition” (what’s that? the tradition of facilitating an illegal alien invasion and calling people xenophobes if they oppose it?), Palin was listening onstage with her husband and her daughter Bristol. So Palin’s still sticking in our faces her now very pregnant and still unmarried 17 year old daughter. Apparently it hasn’t occurred to anyone in the Palin family or the McCain campaign that this is not a time for Bristol to be at stage center. The message Palin sends by putting Bristol on display like this is that illegitimate pregnancy and childbirth is fine. But what is the greatest single factor that turns a self-governing people into a bunch of husbandless, fatherless families who are unable to provide for themselves and need the government to be their husband and father? Illegitimacy.And here was my bottom line on the Bristol pregnancy and what it said about the Palin candidacy, written on September 3, the day of Palin’s convention speech:
So of course my position goes beyond just saying that she shouldn’t have run. Since she did run, she is imposing this mess on all of us and requiring conservatives and America to become nonjudgmental about illegitimacy and thus to abandon a fundamental principle on which civilized society rests. And that is something for which I consider her very blameworthy.That was the slightest sampling of the Great Palin Debate from last September. Further VFR postings are listed here. Are you can go here and do a further Google search of VFR.
Evan H. sent me my September 5 comment with which this entry begins plus the AP article, along with this note:
Good call!Clark Coleman writes:
I guess we don’t have to buy a gift for the wedding of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.LA replies:
You make an excellent point, and also remind us of the lowest moment of Michelle Malkin and several other “conservative” women: that angry, in-your-face, feminist YouTube.March 12
Laura W. writes:
Many ordinary Republican women said of Sarah, “She’s just like me!” If a woman talks all the time about her family and yet spends little time with them, she can still call herself a family values conservative come hell or high water. High water came to Bristol and now it comes to little Trip (or Trap?) [LA: or Trick? or Truck?], who enters the remarkably expanding ranks of the fatherless. It won’t hurt Sarah, will it? She’s part of Loveland. Open, lavish, gushy affection for one’s children—plus cell phone calls and an appearance at their sporting events—exonerates one from the responsibility of raising them, from guarding them as teenagers and from providing them with the little trivialities of yesteryear, such as a home-cooked meal. Call it Romantic Parenthood—all sentiment and little content.LA replies:
I saw something really disturbing and alarming the other day, but didn’t click on it and don’t have it now: that the illegitimacy rate in the U.S. is now 38 percent.Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
Clark Coleman writes:Carol Iannone writes:
Regarding the cancellation of any Bristol/Levi wedding plans, Lisa Schiffren writes thoughtfully at The Corner, but ends by saying that Corner readers do not show much interest in the importance of marriage anymore. But wasn’t Lisa herself a supporter of Giuliani for president, along with quite a few other conservatives? Wasn’t that a pretty clear signal that they no longer regarded the marriage, family, and children issue as important—the fact that they wanted to see in the White House a man who committed open adultery, publicly humiliated his wife and tried to throw her and his children out of Gracie Mansion so that his girlfriend could attend functions there and play at being the city’s “first lady,” and then once in his new marriage, allowed his wife to estrange him from his young son and daughter who from that point grew up virtually without him? I certainly continue to consider the issue of primary importance, so much so that I could not support someone with Giuliani’s marital record for the White House, no matter how much electoral capital I thought he had; and, as it turned out, Giuliani didn’t even have that much.John D. writes:
Carol Iannone writes:March 13
Laura W. writes:
It’s hard to fathom why anyone would see a need to embrace single motherhood in order to fight abortion considering the staggering, unmet demand for adoptable children. Here is an amazing figure. According to a recent article on foreign adoptions in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the number of American children available for adoption has declined to 13,000 annually from 89,000 in the mid-70s.Gintas writes:
“Following the Bristol Palin disaster last September when conservatives eagerly abandoned their opposition to out-of-wedlock pregnancy, it seemed that opposition to abortion was the sole remaining conservative principle in the hollowed-out Republican party. And now Steele undermines that as well.”Laura W. writes:
There is an interesting question that gets to the secret shame and confusion a culture of promiscuity and legalized abortion causes. Why is it not shameful for a young woman to have an abortion, but it is shameful for, say, a student at Princeton to appear on campus pregnant even though there are plenty of couples who would love to raise her child? If promiscuity were truly accepted, then there would be loads of college students walking around pregnant. The truth is it is only accepted as a momentary good. It is socially impermissible for a Princeton student to appear pregnant because in doing so she appears constrained by her sexuality. A truth is revealed.March 14
Larry G. writes:
Laura W’s last comment in this thread (March 13th) is on to something when she says pregnancy constrains women in their sexuality, but perhaps not the right something. Are women, despite a half-century of feminism, defining themselves as sex objects? Then enduring a pregnancy puts them “out of commission” for nine months, while an abortion puts them back in business in a matter of days. Further, if women are using sex as a good to trade for other goods and services—not through actual prostitution, but informally—then a pregnancy is an intolerable economic imposition as well, even if the baby is eventually given away. So while abortion is promoted as necessary to give women the freedom to control their bodies, in practice they use that freedom to live as sexual commidities. Thus the feminist emphasis on abortion rights does not free women from sexual stereotypes, but aggravates and enables them.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 11, 2009 11:57 PM | Send