Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« AP Reporter Gets Pelosi-gate Story Right | Main | Just the Facts, Ma'am »

August 29, 2008

Comments

Tim J.

It's time we had a cute vice president.

I don't know much about Palin, but I guess we're all a fixin' to find out.

BillyHW

It's time we had a cute vice president.

What? You don't think Dick Cheney is cute?

SDG

Tim J - what I've learned in the last half hour sounds really intriguing.

Catholic Deacon

5 Kids... Pro-lifer... Is she Catholic?

SDG

Evangelical, I believe.

One of her kids has Down syndrome.

Kasia

5 kids, AND the fifth one has Down's. She knew, and she still had him.

You go, girl!

Mary Kay

She sounds great!

Catholic Deacon, doubt she's Catholic given her kids' names, but she still sounds like a great VP pick.

Kasia

It's time we had a cute vice president.

What? You don't think Dick Cheney is cute?

Well, Gore was kind of blandly cute in a pencil-pushing-dweeb kind of way back in '92, before he went all Mountain Man...

SDG

Some comments from another forum I hang out in...

She's a shark, I don't think she would have any problem standing next to Biden in a debate. Apparently some staffer has been feverishly putting together a wiki on her, as it is a pretty thrilling account of a principled supermom whistleblower salty sea dog beauty queen.

And what a smart choice for McCain, snagging someone with an energy policy track record. As slick as Obama has been with riding the messiah wave, this could be a really smart move provided we don't discover something more nefarious than a little squabble with a State Trooper.

She also has a unique advantage of being a conservative that banned gay marriage in her state, yet also vetoed a bill that would bar same-sex couples from benefits. And she is a mom with loads of kids, one of whom is in Iraq, and one of whom has Down Syndrome. I gamble they pose her as the anti-Hillary.

Kasia

I'm thinking a Palin-Biden debate would harken back to the Kennedy-Nixon contrast. And from what little I know about her, I'm betting she could hold her own against him.

The only big negative is her relatively low experience level - but she's got some very comparable experience to Obama, and he's gunning for the top job. She's only running for next-in-line. Big difference.

Sifu Jones

Her lack of experience is actually a plus, because she's in a position where she can get the best kind of on-the-job experience.

As JA says, the dems aren't going to want to bring up the lack of experience; that argument goes directly against them.

The best part about this pick is it completely blindsided the other side. They're going to be scrambling around this for weeks.

Palin is pro-life, young (three years younger than Obama), a crusader (exposed corruption, from a republican no less, on her previous job with an energy commission), and has a lot of little pluses -- female, "soccer" mom (called hockey moms in Alaska!), wants to drill in ANWR, she even runs marathons for gosh sakes.

She's like the Good Hillary.

The Masked Chicken

This race just got exciting. McCain made the announcement in Ohio - sure to be a battleground state if ever there were one, this fall.

The Chicken

SDG

As JA says

Not JA. SDG.

Ed Pie

If nothing else, it's going to generate a lot more discussion and media attention today

NPR, at lunch today, almost sounded disappointed tha they had to take time away from covering Obama

Jeff in Texas

This is a good summary of her pros and cons:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/29/what-palin-does-for-mccain-and-to-obama/

Remember, she has lived the choice issue herself; she has a Downs baby. She also has more EXECUTIVE experience than anyone else in the race.

Curious

Hey SDG,

Given your previous posting (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2008/08/why-mccain-may.html), I expect the check to be sent off to McCain/Palin momentarily :-)

Regarding experience, she has 10 years experience in executive positions, while BHO has 10 years legislative experience. None of the candidates except her have executive experience.

I've got to say that I'm amazed at McCain's adroitness recently. I'm not a big fan of his, expected the VP pick to be a yawn. I actually am rather thrilled. I wonder how many disaffected Hillary voters may really choose McCain/Palin because of the female VP possibilities. Unfortunately may will be put off by a pro-life woman. It shreds their script.

I just hope there's not some heavy shoe waiting to drop about her.

paul f

As a Michigander, I was thinking Romney would be a smart choice, because he'd be able to deliver Michigan to McCain. But the more I'm finding out about Palin, the more I like her and the more I think she's a smart choice.

She's a member of Feminists for Life, which I think will allow her to, maybe, make the pro-life case about more than just religion. She has additional credibility here because she did not terminate her child with Down's. She has credibility on the war because her son is over there. She's a maverick like McCain because she exposed corruption in her own party. I think it'll be hard for the Dems to say much bad about her.

All in all, this is, IMHO, a smart choice.

Curious

One other reflection.

Isn't it sad that, at the VP debate, we'll have a "Catholic" pro-abort debating a pro-life evangelical? How sad that many of our culturally Catholic politicians have such weak moral fiber. I wish the bishops had exploited some teaching moments a few years ago.

Sleeping Beastly

Wow. I like what I've read so far. Still not sure I can bring myself to vote for McCain, but it's seeming a bit less unpalatable.

Mr. WAC

As of 12:53 pm Friday, the governor's website is broken.

SDG

As of 12:53 pm Friday, the governor's website is broken.

It's been broken ever since I posted, apparently. That's what happens when your profile jumps an order of magnitude beyond the capacity of your bandwidth.

...um, not of course meaning to imply that it was traffic from JA.o specifically that crashed the site... :-D

Tim A Troutman

I've read several news articles saying she's Catholic. Great choice for VP. McCain isn't perfect, neither is she but they'll definitely have my vote.

David B.

A big asterisk, of course, would be her experience

Well, as Kasia said, there is a difference between The CEO spot and, to paraphrase John Nance Garner, a bucket of warm spit. :-)

Mary Kay

I wanted to turn sommersaults listening to her speech. Her youngest is the best statement about pro-life; her oldest knocks out the liberals' kneejerk comments about the war. And a dynamic speaker to boot.

One thought occurred to me that goodness is met with resistance, so they will need prayer support also.

SDG

I've read several news articles saying she's Catholic.

Best info is she's a non-denom Evangelical.

bill912

The "splat" you just heard was Obama's post-convention bounce hitting the ground.

labrialumn

The Hillary followers were already holding McCain signs in Denver. Hmm. One heartbeat from the presidency, and better by far (so far as we know)than the other three front-runners.

The big danger now is voter fraud - ACORN is already at work creating tens of thousands of bogus registrations - and the likely riots (by Obamans of -any- race) if Obama loses.

foursure

Anchorage Daily News website has lots of info:

www.adn.com

Al Stakhanov

The above quote regarding the office of Vice Presidency attributed to John Nance Garner should read "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

'This quote was Bowdlerized for many decades to "not worth a bucket of warm spit" by the media. The incorrect version is still used on occasion by writers who say they never heard or read it any other way. Garner once described a writer who quoted it this way as a "pantywaist."'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner#Vice_Presidency

David B.

Al Stakhanov,

I know the correct quote. I paraphrased it, as I said. P### isn't a word I wanted to use on a Catholic blog, if ever.

SDG

Someone reports Rush Limbaugh's reaction: "Sarah Palin. Babies. Guns. Jesus. Hot damn."

David B.

SDG,

LOL! (my thoughts exactly)

JohnD

Her experience as a mayor and governor far exceeds that of Obama's 143 days in senate. And Obama is supposed to be the top of the D ticket.

SDG

(my thoughts exactly)

Heh. Your thoughts, maybe, but not words you would ever have quoted on a Catholic blog, apparently… :-7

Memphis Aggie

This was a truly inspired choice - much more exciting than Romney.

SDG

Statement from the Obama camp:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.

Okay, I find this truly baffling.

"John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Uh huh. In other words, foreign-policy-experience wise, if President McCain dies and Palin winds up in the Oval Office, that would be… just like Obama winning the election and not dying, right?

Then there's executive experience. Remind me how many people lived in the town Obama was mayor of. Or Biden, for that matter. What's what "former mayor of," anyway? She's a governor, right? Granted, of a state with a smaller population than many cities, but at least she has executive experience -- more, as people are saying, than Obama, Biden and McCain combined.

"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same." So… McCain and Palin want to… change the 35-year status quo on Roe, while Obama and Biden want it to… stay the same… so remind me again, which side is for change and which is more of the same? Because I'm losing track.

I'm not sure Palin can be tarred with the Big Oil brush, but at that point I'm beyond my pay grade.

leah

Does Sarah Palin remind anyone else a little of Laura Roslin? To look at her, I mean, not policy-wise. Just wondering. I miss BSG!

LarryD

Her husband works for an oil company and is a member of a steel-workers union.

She told Washington: "we don't need a bridge to nowhere (apparently she battled Ted Stevens on this); thanks but no thanks, but if Alaska needs a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Plus she hunts moose.

Me likes her.

SDG

Does Sarah Palin remind anyone else a little of Laura Roslin?

Palin = Roslin?!? But... but we already know that McCain = Tigh!

What if Roslin turns out to be the final Cylon??! Then we'd have an all-Cylon GOP ticket!

HJ

I recently saw (today)a interview on C-span that was taped on 2-28-08 and when Sarah Palin was asked about her family there she replied that she had 4 children with no mention about her pregnancy or reference to a new addition.
If she is pro life then why would she not mention this when specifically asked. I wonder about this.

Dave Mueller

HJ,
It might have been edited out of the interview. That is the most likely explanation.

SDG

AP headline: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's

:-D

Kayo

HJ: It can't mean much; she had the baby in April. By late February, a fifth pregnancy that far along is just about impossible to physically hide. Besides, if there was a chance at all that she was hiding it, it could be because it was such a high-risk pregnancy that she might have been told that the child might not live. But I wouldn't read anything negative into that at all.

Tim J.

"If she is pro life then why would she not mention this when specifically asked. I wonder about this."

Really? What do you wonder about it? How in the world does it have anything to do with her being pro-life?

Curious

Hello HJ,
My wife and I had 5 kids and my wife never liked to make broadcasts about the one on the way. It seemed presumptuous to her. You never know what might happen. We always shook our heads at couples who would announce way early; seemed rather unseemly to us. So Palin's reticence is understandable to me.

Thomas E. Vaughan

I have seven kids, and, even though my wife has never had a miscarriage (so far as we are aware), she also doesn't like to broadcast early. In the case of Palin's most recent child, she might have known that there could be problems, and so her not talking publicly about the pregnancy is completely understandable, at least to me.

Olav

I've liked the concept of Obama ("post-racial", etc.). The reality, less so (OK with infanticide, etc.). Palin sounds excellent. My previous hope was that Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer & Stevens would all perish together in a hot-tub accident, and that Bush could ram through replacements a'la Janice Rogers Brown. With SCOTUS secured, I'd have been free to vote for the non-war candidate (Obama). With the election nearing and the utter dearth of hot-tub accidents, my voting for Obama had already become less likely. McCain/Palin is looking a lot better than any ticket with Joe Biden on it.

Ed Pie

"...that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

The change we need, meaning "Progress," by which definition, every possible Republican vice president (and president) would be to some degree inadequate.

Anyone else ever get the feeling that there's an undercurrent of "Not now, GOP; the adults are trying to have a conversation?"
It's probably not just them, but I just happened to imagine noticing it.

Adam

Hot damn

The VICE president.
Blonde on one arm, brunette on the other.

Foxfier

I used google to get most of the information off of the state site and put it up on mine:
http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin.html

Jeb Protestant

Personally, I find the idea of a woman who recently gave birth to a special needs child being VP a litle strange. (I don't believe that women should be permitted to vote or hold office in any event.)

That being said, she seems by far the most likeable of the four on the ticket and a very genuine person. She will make a nice contrast to the gas bag Joe Biden.

JH

"(I don't believe that women should be permitted to vote or hold office in any event.)"

WHAT???????

Jeb Protestant

Wikipedia now lists her religions as "Assemblies of God."

The Masked Chicken

From what little I've seen, it looks like some of the MSM is spinning this as a tu quoque argument. From Newsweek:

Happy birthday, Johnny Mac! You're 72 now, a cancer survivor, and a presidential candidate who has said on many occasions that the most important criteria for picking a vice president is whether he or she could immediately step in if something happened to the president. Your campaign against Barack Obama is based on the simple idea that he is unready to be president. So you've picked a running mate who a year and a half ago was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 8,500 people. You've selected a potential leader of the free world who knows little or nothing about the major issues of the day beyond energy. Oh, and she's being probed in her state for lying and abuse of power.

In other words, they don't see it as Obama being underqualified, but only Palin and complain that McCain's choice of someone with little international experience is hypocritical. The MSM seems to be looking through a one-way mirror.

Let's not kid ourselves, the bias in the media, even at this early stage, seems to me to be almost palpable. Hillary Clinton will set the tone for what her supporters to do. I do not expect much of a draw from former Hillarians.

The Chicken

Rachel

"I don't believe that women should be permitted to vote or hold office in any event"

WTF!!!! You can't just make a statement like that and leave it like that!

Ed Peters

Best quip I've seen so far? That Hillary is going out and gettin' drunk tonite. :)

Jeb Protestant

As I recall, the Catholic Church was fighting against giving women the right to vote in Quebec into the 60s.

I'm just trying to think with the mind of the Church here.

Personally, I think voting and office-holding should be restricted to men who own property and believe in the Trinity.

David B.

Your thoughts, maybe, but not words you would ever have quoted on a Catholic blog, apparently… :-7

:-1

"P***" is a vulgar word, coming from the vulgar Latin, pissiāre. In modern times it is considered 'vulgar.'

OTOH, "Hot Damn" is considered 'slang,' coming from the words 'hot,' which refers to temperature or feeling, and 'Damn,' which refers to a hot place. ;-D

I apologize to Al Stakhanov and anyone else if my post seemed like the response of a priggish and judgmental jerk , as that was not my intention.

David B.

Personally, I find the idea of a woman who recently gave birth to a special needs child being VP a litle strange. L

What part? The idea of a woman, the idea of a women giving birth to a child, or the idea of giving birth to a special needs child?

Adam

Best info is she's a non-denom Evangelical.

From an interview with her two weeks ago...

What's your religion?

Christian.

Any particular...?

No. Bible-believing Christian.

What church do you attend?

A non-denominational Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.

Adam

I'm just trying to think with the mind of the Church here.

If you thought with the mind of (allegedly pro-woman) Fr. Thomas Reese: "Deep down the Vatican's position is that it would hope that the husband earned enough so that women could stay home and take care of the kids."

But according to Palin, "With Todd's slope work, he works 700 miles away from home. And the commercial fishing. And I've got a busy schedule.

"But also my immediate family and my extended family, for the most part, are Alaskans, they're here, helping with a network, a support system. I got a couple of aunts outside in Washington state too who are very, very helpful to me. So logistically speaking it's not impossible what I'm doing. I've got great assistance."

Sleeping Beastly

I don't understand this obsession with "experience." George Washington didn't have any experience when he took the post, and we actually have rules (term limits) that prevent the people with the most experience from holding onto the job for too long.

I'd rather my president had principles, backbone, and a human heart than experience.

Foxfier

SB-- I support experience, because it gives you a chance to know what the person can do.

This gal has been a major, a manager, a leader of majors, a governor who actually got a LOT of stuff done....

Washington had experience leading folks; nobody was making BS arguments about "national experience"-- they were looking at who was a good leader.

Tony Sidaway

Jimmy, one way to avoid sending people to a vandalized page is to use Wikipedia's history function. Click on the history tab and then select the latest version (the one at the top of the list). Then after checking for vandalism, paste that URL instead of the normal URL for the article, and that ensures that they'll see the version of the article you were referring to.

Like so: Sarah Palin (revision as of 05:42 GMT, 30 August 2008

RCM

Sarah is not Catholic.
She is 100% pro-life.
Her kids' names are Alaskan names (Bristol for Bristol Bay, AK, ie, salmon runs; Piper for the airplane which everyone has to fly to get around here; Willow for the town, AK).
Her child was the mascot for AKRTL's site for a long time.

She is down to earth and the real deal. My husband and I worked on her Alaskan campaign.

I worked the polls the day she was elected in AK and Dems/Indeps/Non-voters voted for her. She has appeal.

jt82

The libs absolutely hate her,

see the following:

http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/fendrich/mccains-misogyny

Tim J.

jt82, you're correct. The libs and Dems are absolutely foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth because they KNOW Palin is a good pick and will give them real trouble.

If you joined me and the six other people who caught a few minutes of Keith Olberman last night, you'll know what I'm talking about.

They were in full-on denial, trying to make it sound like McCain had made an obvious blunder and that common folk would be shocked - shocked! - that he made such an inept choice.

Meanwhile, everyone but indentured Democratic servants and entrenched left-wing bomb-throwers really like Palin and think McCain made a gutsy and smart choice.

Why Should We Vote for this New McCain/Palin Team?

LINK:
Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback Democrats warn women that high court — and abortion rights — is at stake

DENVER - The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade.

The 1973 Supreme Court decision nationalizing a woman’s right to get an abortion was a top-of-mind issue for top Democrats.

Voters, beware, the Democrats' message seemed to be: Palin is not in favor of abortion rights.

The Democrats seemed to be concerned that some voters might be under the misapprehension that Palin was a pro-choice woman — or that because she is a woman, it might help McCain get the votes of pro-choice women.

The message echoed and re-echoed:

“Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.

“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.

“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.

“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women's rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.

If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.

ROE v. WADE AT STAKE - OBAMA WARNS

Why Should We Vote for this New McCain/Palin Team?

LINK:
Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback Democrats warn women that high court — and abortion rights — is at stake

DENVER - The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade.

The 1973 Supreme Court decision nationalizing a woman’s right to get an abortion was a top-of-mind issue for top Democrats.

Voters, beware, the Democrats' message seemed to be: Palin is not in favor of abortion rights.

The Democrats seemed to be concerned that some voters might be under the misapprehension that Palin was a pro-choice woman — or that because she is a woman, it might help McCain get the votes of pro-choice women.

The message echoed and re-echoed:

“Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.

“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.

“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.

“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women's rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.

If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.

SDG

Jeb P: Wikipedia now lists her religions as "Assemblies of God."

Based on some inferences at the Dallas Morning News's Religion Blog. From what I've seen, Palin disclaims a specific denominational label. Just because she sometimes attends an A/G church doesn't make her A/G.

Let's not kid ourselves, the bias in the media, even at this early stage, seems to me to be almost palpable. Hillary Clinton will set the tone for what her supporters to do. I do not expect much of a draw from former Hillarians.

Are you sure? Cuz I think it's just possible that Hillary not-so-secretly wants Obama to lose.

Florentius

I think this is a great pick. McCain/Palin may be the most pro-life ticket the GOP has EVER fielded!

Jeb Protestant

One story quotes her as being a member of the Wasilia Bible Church. The typical "Bible Church" is non-pentecostal from what I can tell.

Jeb Protestant

http://wasillabible.org/

Eileeen R

Jeb Protestant:
As I recall, the Catholic Church was fighting against giving women the right to vote in Quebec into the 60s.

Canadian nitpicking alert, It was actually in 1940 that Quebec gave women the vote in provincial elections. Quebec women had already had the vote in federal elections since 1918. True enough, the Catholic Church in Quebec was the staunch opponent of female suffrage, and put forth their position as late as 1940 as natural law and Rome's view.

Well, if you know anything about Quebec, you know how horribly things have gone there for the Church. There was a lot of wonderful faith, charity and evangelization that came out of the Quebec Church, but clericalism really damaged the flock, and left it wide open for the attacks of the 60s and 70s on their faith.

Eileen R

Oh one more thing. Turns out Palin was baptized Catholic, but her parents fell away from the Church when she was a small child, and she's been going to Non-Denominational churches ever since.

See Her Interview with Time.

There's nothing to blame her for there, but it's always sad to hear stories like that. I do hope that the Church as she's encountered it in her adult pro-life work has been a good witness to her. Maybe one day she'll discover what her parents left behind.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

Jeb writes:
>Personally, I think voting and office-holding should be restricted to men who own property and believe in the Trinity.

I reply: WOW!!!!!!Jeb I had no idea you where such an extremist fruitcake! Take about Jawdrop!!!

I can't wait to tell everyone this the next time you post some snarky Ad hominid attack on the Church. I doubt anyone will take you seriously when this gets around.

Tim J.

Ben Yachov, please keep things civil and drop the ad hominems.

That's part of Da Rulz of Jimmy's blog (check the left hand column).

Okay, Jeb's view is an extreme position. That doesn't make it wrong automatically, or Jeb a fruitcake - necessarily.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

>Okay, Jeb's view is an extreme position. That doesn't make it wrong automatically, or Jeb a fruitcake - necessarily.

I reply: Yes it does. It absolutely does.

If you don't want me to make fun of him fine but to claim he is not a fruitcake for such extremist views is an insult to my intelligence.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

>Okay, Jeb's view is an extreme position. That doesn't make it wrong automatically, or Jeb a fruitcake - necessarily.

I reply: Yes it does. It absolutely does.

If you don't want me to make fun of him fine but to claim he is not a fruitcake for such extremist views is an insult to my intelligence.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

I have no idea why I'm double posting.

SDG

FWIW, I confess, as one who's criticized BenYachov's intemperance in the past and thinks BenYachov has a definite civility problem, that in this case I'm having a hard time finding the line between accurate characterization of Jeb's position and language like "extremist fruitcake."

Granted that even extremist fruitcakes should be treated charitably, I'm not sure BenYachov's language in this case isn't more or less within the pale. BenYachov had no call to be calling Tony Sidaway a sociopath -- as unreasonable as Tony can be and has been in discussion -- but calling Jeb a fruitcake, at least in this connection, isn't anything like that egregious.

I confess, I'd rather see BenYachov not pounce with such triumphalist delight, savoring future debunkings of Jeb's anti-Catholic polemics with "Oh yeah?" ad hominem. But we can't enforce charity, only minimal civility.

Sleeping Beastly

Ben Yachov,
I'm not sure it was necessary to call him a fruitcake, but I'll leave it to Jimmy to enforce Da Rulz, assuming they even apply here.

Jeb Protestant,
I'll bite. What do you feel our society would have to gain by denying the vote to women, non-Christians, and non-landowners?

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

Tony Sidaway IS a sociopath as are all of PZ Myers' followers without exception. (I would say the same about the followers of the "Rev" Phelps). This I truly believe. It is not said by me so much to insult but as far as I'm concerned it's a statement of fact. You may disagree but my mind is made up.

The thing is from my long experience with Jeb & my limited experience with Tony that I have come to believe from interacting with them that neither is a person of good will(thought Tony is 1000 times worst than Jeb ever was let's be clear). They are both disingenuous in the extreme. Well I am all for honest debate & disagreement but not with jerks or people who hold wacko views.

Granted Tony is far far far more out there then Jeb. I just want to put that on the table.

I will not treat a person who, for example thinks sex with children is normal, as a person with an honest opinion. I will rather express my utter contempt for such a sick view & point out it is in objective FACT a sick point of view.

The same goes for persons who believe it is moral to steal objects others value, but they do not, & think their victims have to prove to them the object in question is objectively valuable before they repudiate stealing it & call for the punishment of those who do. Such people are sociopaths since normal human beings realize you should not do this.

Of course Jeb's view that only property owning male Trinitarians is wacko fruit-cakery. But to be clear it is not sociopathic. I'll give him that.

>I confess, I'd rather see BenYachov not pounce with such triumphalist delight, savoring future debunkings of Jeb's anti-Catholic polemics with "Oh yeah?" ad hominem. But we can't enforce charity, only minimal civility.

I reply: I would rather you not feed sociopathic trolls who don't have any clear objective or consistent moral code or granting them legitimacy by debating them endlessly. But you can't have everything my friend.

You are a free agent do what you want. My mind is made up.

CT

Ben, perhaps you missed what SDG wrote in another thread?

SDG wrote:
BenYachov, if you're still reading, take note: You will remember that we've had words in the past about rudeness toward others. Uncivil discourse, including calling other posters things like "sociopaths," can and will get posters banned. Please try to keep discussion civil, or better yet charitable.

Or perhaps not, judging from your penultimate sentence: "... do what you want."

You seem to be bitter or angry. I hope you find something that relieves that (clearly in your particular case nothing you presently possess or appropriate is doing so) I would recommend something to you (it involves a kind of "club" or "bar" -- need not serve any alcohol however nor even involve anything considered inherently sinful by Catholicism) but as it may contradict the moral beliefs as regards prudential action of our host, JA, I will refrain from doing so. Something I can recommend is movies. Perhaps rent the movie in which John McCain had a cameo: Wedding Crashers.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

CT based on your posts I don't regard you as a person of good will either. Just so we are clear.

Thought had you recommended I watch the BBC scifi comedy RED DWARF I might have rethought that view. But you blew it. Wedding Crashers? Why not recommend a Will Farrel movie while you are at it? Or better yet you could shoot me in the head.

Tim J.

"I will not treat a person who, for example thinks sex with children is normal, as a person with an honest opinion"

Granted. I also think that Jeb's coming out and admitting that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold office does make me feel rather less concerned about his opinion of MY beliefs.

It's just that a lot of people would consider me an extreme fruitcake because I have a Pope and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Tony, for instance.

The Masked Chicken

Just to chime in on the Jeb question. I don't know if he intended this or not, but his statement:

Personally, I think voting and office-holding should be restricted to men who own property and believe in the Trinity.

Should be recognized by everyone, here, as the conditions that reigned during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. I could be wrong, but one could read this as a cry of exasperation that people are allowed to vote who don't even know the names of their senators or the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This would be a charitable assessment of what Jeb meant to express. Perhaps he really mean to be cynical, but I do not know. All I can determine is that James 1:19 surely isn't being obeyed in this combox:

James 1:19 "But let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger."

Personally, given the dumbing down of modern education, I am almost tempted to say that no one should be allowed to vote who can't go without watching tv or the internet for a week. Maybe, if people took their time and had to really think through issues instead of getting their information in soundbites, this election would be much more clear-cut. A study was done a few years ago on how much political information people were able to pick up from various sources. If I recall, radio and newspapers were very close. TV was very far behind. I sincerely doubt that more than 20% of all voters will have read one speech by the candidates or studied any history of the issues before the election. Voters are deciding on, perhaps, the most important person on the planet in terms of responsibility for stability and they do so for such cavalier reasons.

People spend (or should spend) months or years getting to know the person they are going to marry. Shouldn't they spend some time really getting to know the people and the issues in the election? We do not have an informed electorate in this country. I maintain that we haven't had one in forty years.

I would not go so far as to say what Jeb said, but I certainly want people to quit watching the tv screen and really do what they should: deliberate.

If people can be so easily convinced that abortion, pre-marital sex, and contraception are good things instead of the moral evils they are, in what sense should I cede them the right to cast an intelligent vote. No, I do not believe that intelligent people can reach the conclusion that abortion is a good. I do not believe that intelligent people can come to the conclusion that the issue is about choice (whatever that is supposed to be) at all. Really, in my eyes, such people should be disqualified from voting. I actually don't care that some people will disagree with me in this combox. I am not a relativist. When white becomes black and black becomes white, we've slipped into Orwell's Newspeak and real communication becomes impossible. I just want a politician who says yes when he means yes and no when he means no. It makes judgments so much easier.

I'm sorry, but I am extremely cynical somedays when it comes to the common sense of the American people. If they can't even muster the common sense to know right from wrong, how are they to make the far more subtle distinctions necessary to choose a president from the best of a bad lot?

Sorry for being so discouraged. Can someone give me a reason for hope? Yes, McCain and Palin are both pro-life, but how many people will they really persuade to change their minds on this issue, otherwise, this whole period from now to November simply becomes a referendum, not a learning experience.

Lincoln and Douglas not only debated, without scripts, on occasion, but they really sought to develop ideas, slowly, methodically. during those debates. Reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates should be mandatory for high school students during an election year. It would show the real poverty in the modern campaign process with scripted debates and smiles, smiles, smiles - this is nothing more than a play in a bright shiny theater. What I want to know is: who is the ticket master?

Sorry. I've had a sinus migraine all day. I'm grumpy, sneezy, sleepy, and dopey, all rolled into one. Somedays, I wish there had been a dwarf named moppy.

The Chicken

Tim J.

I have to say that McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate almost makes me forget that two of his top ten favorite songs (according to Slate) are ABBA tunes.

Almost.

(Uugghhh... *shivers*)

John

"Isn't it sad that, at the VP debate, we'll have a 'Catholic' pro-abort debating a pro-life evangelical?"

Yes, it is sad, but in all charity, please remember that opposition to abortion is not exclusively a Catholic issue, and that Catholics do not necessarily have a monopoly on morality or right thinking. There are many Protestants who abhor the practice as well.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy has severely damaged its credibility in recent years through the pedophile priest scandal.

Tim J.

Sorry you're sickly, Chicken, Try some... Masked Chicken soup.

SDG to BenYachov

BENYACHOV: Further accusations of sociopathy against other combox participants will result in your being disinvited to participate on the blog. Please keep it civil. Thank you.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

>Granted. I also think that Jeb's coming out and admitting that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold office does make me feel rather less concerned about his opinion of MY beliefs.

I reply: And the next time I see him post some snarky swipe at the late John Paul or the Church in general I will make good on my threat to out him further.

>It's just that a lot of people would consider me an extreme fruitcake because I have a Pope and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

>Tony, for instance.

I reply: So if it's valid for him to feel that way & express it why is it not valid for me?

BTW I've said it repeatedly to people like Tony & other PZ Myers fembots. I could care less what they think about my beliefs or say about it. But the moment they STEAL (or in Tony's case justify/rationalize stealing) our sacred stuff & demand we have to prove to them it's valuable before they respect it I will treat them the way a black man would treat a Klansmen.
They deserve neither respect nor intellectual legitimacy.

Now the Atheist Blogger I cited a while Back from the Daily Kos he gets it. He condemned Myers' crimes unequivocally & called for Myers to be fired. That guy can't stand the Catholic League or it's President but at least he has common decency. Stop treating the likes of Tony & his ilk as if they are reasonable beings. They are not. They are indifferent to the rights of others & yet they jealously insist on their own right including the right to violate our rights as part of their so called freedom.

Excuse me if I find them that contemptible & say so.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

Let me say something about sociopaths in general.

(as opposed to specific individuals whom the management doesn't want identified as such since they are of the strong belief to do so is not civil. A view I don't agree with at all for reasons stated but it's their blog so I WON'T CALL said individuals what I truly believe they objectively are while in the management's house. To do otherwise would be to violate the management's sovereign rights to operate their blog they way they want too. Much like going into other people's houses of worship & stealing their sacred objects against their will to desecrate them).

But that having been said.

What they don't get with their "It's OK for me to steal your sacred object that I find worthless & damage it at will till you prove to me it's value" meme is let us say you could miraculously prove to them the doctrine of Transubstantiation? Well they might STILL believe it's OK to steal objects others greatly value but they don't & they proceed to steal the "Eucharists" of the Lutherans & other anti-Transubstantiation Protestants who believe in a version of the real presence.

So it's futile to be "civil" with them.

Jeb Protestant

I'm not sure why my views on voting and office-holding are considered extreme. They are consistent with what the Catholic Church taught for a long time, as well what was practiced in the US. For example, the Vatican was a strong supporter of Pres. Garcia Moreno's creating a Catholic state in Ecuador whose government officials had to be Catholics. So I'm quite liberal here.

Restricting voting to Christians would probably have prevented the Europe's and the US's suicidal embrace of multiculturalism via mass immigration.

CT

For those who like to call all those who are pro-choice "pro-abort" or "pro-abortion"

First I note that one Catholic here demurred in that regard and remarked that being pro-choice does not entail being pro-abortion.

Second, I ask this:

Suppose there were a pro-choice woman who much like Palin, when discovering that her child would face severe difficulties in life -- in Palin's case Down Syndrome -- chose to not terminate the pregnancy?

As you praise Palin for her choice would you also praise this pro-choice woman for hers? Or is it somehow morally impermissible to praise the moral virtues of someone who is pro-choice, especially as it relates to their own personal pro-life decisions?

And what you call such a pro-choice woman "pro-abortion" or "pro-abort" even though she made this choice which in the case of Palin is described as "heroic" by some and is cause for being featured on Christian fundamentalist radio programs precisely to praise her authentic, heroic decision?

The fact is, many pro-choice persons are personally pro-life. They are simply not for imposing pro-life choices on other people.

And yes, women like the one in my example above are not mere hypothetical entities -- many such women exist and yet according to Masked Chicken they are unable to "cast an intelligent vote" and according to all of you with exception noted, they are "pro-abortion." There exist even pro-choice but personally pro-life women who choose to keep a baby that is the product of rape.

One cannot be pro-life in an anti-choice way while recognizing that these personally pro-life women heroines are reasonable in their pro-choice beliefs. Yet to say their beliefs are unreasonable, seems a little unreasonable itself. If their beliefs are reasonably held, if the issue of choice is something on which reasonable men can disagree, then that itself is (I won't explicate this here) an argument for choice.

Speaking of which, if your young daughter were raped or if you yourself were raped, would it not the thought of abortion at least cross your mind? If so how can one condemn those who choose abortion to jail or death or those who perform it to jail or death or those who faciliate it to jail or death without also condemning your own thoughts? And if something like this can in some circumstances cross your mind, then is it not a reasonable course of action in some circumstances -- or is your mind liable to ponder unreasonable courses of action? And if it is a reasonable -- albeit on your view still immoral -- course of action, then on what grounds is the reasonable yet immoral made unlawful?

There is no disruption to society when an abortion takes place. They take place all the time naturally in miscarriages -- often ones that occur before anyone knows anyone is pregnant. These may in fact be the majority of the abortions. Thus adding induced abortions shouldn't disrupt society in any substantial way.

@Jeb

I don't see your view as extreme relative to Christianity. On Christianity, your view is reasonable. However, that is just another reason to reject Christianity as both extreme and untrue.

My own position is also non-democratic. I would be open to proposals that limited voting rights to individuals who did not regard any text or person as -- under whatever circumstances -- in some way inherently inerrant beyond the inerrancy it would have in an ordinary text or ordinary person. That would not exclude Christians. Christians who look to the bible for spiritual wisdom would still be permitted to vote.

ToddC

CT,

First of all, an abortion is a purposeful killing of an unborn child. A miscarriage is not. The end is that a child has died, but surely you can see the difference.

A man eating in a restaurant chokes on his food and dies. Another man is walking down the street and someone grabs him, pulls him into an alley, and cuts his throat and he dies.

You might not agree that the unborn child is a child, but surely you can see if that assumption is made there is a big difference. If not, I would be interested in seeing why you thought not. Saying, 'It's not wrong for God to kill an unborn child, so why is it for anyone else?' is not a defense that will hold water. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't use it in the man walking down the street scenario...but I guess we will see.

BTW, I am sure every person here would praise the act of a woman who thinks that being pro-choice (pro-abortion / anti-life - it's a choose your own label adventure) is the way to go, but still chooses to not abort her child.

John

Choosing a political candidate SOLELY on the issue of abortion is dangerous. In Nazi Germany, abortion was a criminal offense.

Eileen R

John, Don't think anyone's proposing to do that, but it's worth noting that while abortion was a criminal offense for the average German, it was mandated for the less than perfect. (If there'd been a test for Down's Syndrome then, Hitler's Germany would have used abortion for Down's babies. As it was, it just killed them after they were born.) So, even the mythical person who'd choose a candidate only on the issue of abortion wouldn't have chosen Hitler.

SDG

First I note that one Catholic here demurred in that regard and remarked that being pro-choice does not entail being pro-abortion.

No labels are 100 percent satisfactory. In general, I would advocate a system in which everyone is known by what they call themselves and by the values they identify with, thus we would speak of "pro-life" and "pro-choice." However, many partisans on both sides, including the MSM, resist this, thus pro-lifers are almost invariably called "anti-abortion" in the media. Using "pro-abortion" is merely parity and self-defense.

Also, FWIW, the "pro-choice" position in practice isn't always as "pro-choice" as advocates claim. Sometimes abortion is aggressively pushed as the only viable or right "choice." Young women have been coerced, lied to and had their protestations and objections ignored. While this sort of thing may not be ubiquitous, I suspect it is more widespread than many would like to admit.

I'm sure similar things have happened on the other side which could give some warrant to the polemical term "anti-choice." But then, the pro-life side never claimed "choice" as their top virtue, so in preferring life to choice, even in unethical ways, pro-lifers wouldn't be as hypocritical as "pro-choicers" preferring abortion to choice.

Ultimately, abortion advocacy is not simply "pro-choice," but part of what can rightly be called a culture of death, an anti-life ethic that includes euthanasia, contraception and general social downgrading of marriage and family. The population crash faced by Europe in particular, as well as the decline of marriage and family increasingly depriving children of the benefit of a home with a father and a mother, are among the consequences.

Suppose there were a pro-choice woman who much like Palin, when discovering that her child would face severe difficulties in life -- in Palin's case Down Syndrome -- chose to not terminate the pregnancy? As you praise Palin for her choice would you also praise this pro-choice woman for hers?

Absolutely. 100 percent. My hat is off to anyone of any persuasion who makes the right choice. If anything, I might give the pro-choice woman more credit than the pro-life woman with regard to the moral heroism of this particular act (though obviously not more credit in general).

FWIW, not long ago on PZ Myers' blog I saluted an atheist who volunteered at Hospice. I believe that in the end atheism is incompatible with true morality, but atheists who are personally highly moral still have my personal esteem.

The fact is, many pro-choice persons are personally pro-life. They are simply not for imposing pro-life choices on other people.

The big question for those who claim to be "personally opposed but" is "personally opposed to what?" What exactly is abortion that you should be personally opposed to it? Is it the taking of a human life, or not? Of course that's a rhetorical question; there's no question that abortion is the taking of a human life. The embryo or fetus in the womb is a member of the human family. So the only real question is, ought the state to recognize the rights of members of the human family to live, or the rights of others to kill them?

Speaking of which, if your young daughter were raped or if you yourself were raped, would it not the thought of abortion at least cross your mind?

The thought of murder, yes (of the rapist). Of abortion, never. Adding an innocent baby's blood to my daughter's conscience for the rest of her life would never, ever occur to me as a way of "helping" her in such a crisis. Quite the opposite: I could never regard that as anything other than incalculably compounding her crisis, adding evil to evil, making her not just a victim of aggression but also an aggressor and victimizer of one weaker and more defenseless than herself.

What's more, I'm pleased and proud to say that, knowing my 14-year-old daughter as I do, she would undoubtedly feel far more strongly than I would on this point.

If so how can one condemn those who choose abortion to jail or death or those who perform it to jail or death or those who faciliate it to jail or death without also condemning your own thoughts?

Aside: red herring here. No one here is talking about "jail or death" for those who "choose" abortion, only for abortion providers.

There is no disruption to society when an abortion takes place. They take place all the time naturally in miscarriages -- often ones that occur before anyone knows anyone is pregnant. These may in fact be the majority of the abortions. Thus adding induced abortions shouldn't disrupt society in any substantial way.

That's like saying that there is no disruption in society when a person dies -- death takes place all the time naturally -- thus adding induced deaths shouldn't disrupt society in any substantial way.

And of course the culture of death already has disrupted society in substantial ways, as the decline of marriage and family and the underpopulation crisis illustrates.

My own position is also non-democratic. I would be open to proposals that limited voting rights to individuals who did not regard any text or person as -- under whatever circumstances -- in some way inherently inerrant beyond the inerrancy it would have in an ordinary text or ordinary person. That would not exclude Christians. Christians who look to the bible for spiritual wisdom would still be permitted to vote.

This seems a bit garbled, but I think we know what you mean. How lucky for us that you're almost as fringe as Jeb Protestant on this point.

Tony Sidaway, meet CT. CT, Tony.

CT

Sorry for the length of this post but I fear that should I contract my quotations that others would accuse me as before of quoting out of context.

No one here is talking about "jail or death" for those who "choose" abortion, only for abortion providers.

So you admit to supporting "jail or death" for abortion providers. Is that merely the physician/surgeon who performs the abortion or also the nurses who participate in the procedure? What about others who facilitate with varying degrees of proximity to the abortion? What of the person who pays for the abortion (if you are right then wouldn't that be comparable to hiring a hit man on behalf of someone else?). And on what grounds would you leave this crime of murder unpunished (as regards jail or death) while punishing other crimes of murder (with jail or death)? Now you say that you aren't "talking" about jail or death for those who choose abortion -- but what do you believe? Should those who choose abortion be punished in some cases with jail or death? It is, let's face it, politically and socially unpalatable to advocate for punishing those who choose abortion. And while you may be reticent on this matter, there are Catholics who advocate jail or death for women who choose abortion (and if a woman pays for her own abortion, is that not conquerable on your views to a woman hiring a hit man to kill her own child?)

Even a Catholic anti-choice pro-lifer admits the disingenousness of the movement here:

I do not think we pro-lifers can honestly say that no women who has an illegal abortion will automatically be granted immunity from breaking the law. Some women will be legally punished, some will not. Some abortionists will be punished, some will not. Same with boyfriends, husbands, parents, nurses, doctors, school counselors, anyone who in involved in the crime. Some will face some type of punishment, and others will be granted immunity for various extenuating circumstances or if they "cop a deal" or whatever.

http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/02/01/90528/

BTW, in the Vatican, abortion is not permitted even to save the life of the mother. Thus, it seems to me, that Catholic anti-choice pro-lifers would likely be committed to not allowing an exception for the life of the mother. Even Palin, who is anti-choice with respect to victims of rape and incest, is pro-choice when it comes to the life of the mother. Let's hope she doesn't convert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_law&oldid=234668967

And it is not merely the commenter on catholicexchange, but Matt Abbott and James Fitzpatrick who both question the intellectual honesty of certain contrary positions:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070827
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/080130

Ms. Quindlen does point out a weakness in the right-to-life movement. Much like the debate among pro-lifers on the issue of contraception — which, incidentally, has become more prominent in recent times, thanks to the efforts of Father Tom Euteneuer, Joe Scheidler and Judie Brown — the debate about whether the abortion-seeking woman should be treated as a criminal is something many in the movement are seemingly not comfortable addressing.

Now, I realize that, at this point, it's really not a relevant aspect of the pro-life position. Abortion remains legal, and, sadly, such will likely be the case for quite some time. Thus, we pro-lifers should be focused on helping women and children in need and on continuing to educate the public about the terrible reality of abortion. We can worry about the legal penalties for abortion if and when abortion is outlawed (although we do have a moral obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legalized abortion) (...)

Ms. Quindlen is correct in her assertion that if one believes abortion to be murder, one should advocate treating it as such in our legal system. If, however, one asserts that abortion is murder, and should be illegal, but the abortion-seeking woman shouldn't be punished because she, like her unborn child, is a victim, well, I agree that said line of argument can be hypocritical.

So the first step of the anti-choice pro-life movement is to make abortion illegal (and here to as Steve Forbes strategized change the culture gradually as the law is changed gradually including by parental consent measures and late-term abortion bans) and then the next step (once anti-choice pro-lifers have political governance) is to ponder the penalities for those involved, including the women.

Now Matt Abbott in revisiting the issue where he reprints a column from JKF says " I essentially agree with Mr. Fitzpatrick's position"

Quindlen is on the mark. How can we hold to the position that only the abortionist should face criminal charges for the killing of the unborn child, and not the woman who contracted him to perform the killing? We wouldn't let someone who hired an assassin escape punishment.[incidentally the Vatican newspaper has referred to abortion as "assasination"] The problem, of course, is that pro-lifers understand that if they call for jail time for women who undergo an abortion they will kill any chance for passing laws to outlaw abortions. They know how voters will respond to the prospect of women being handcuffed and frog-walked off to jail in punishment for their abortions.

The pro-abortion forces think they have us cornered. They contend that if we say we don't want the women who have abortions punished, it must be because we intuit, despite our protestations to the contrary, that the fetus is not truly a child. But if we admit to that proposition, why forbid abortions? If, on the other hand, we insist upon calling for serious jail time for women who procure abortions, we know that we will alienate voters who oppose abortion on principle, but who do not want women, perhaps their own family members, going to prison because of their abortions.

And contra SDG -- who knows perhaps it is true of SDG and perhaps even on for everyone on this blog as far as publically expressed "talking" goes -- there are pro-lifers who support jail for women who procure abortion. JKF is one of them:

Am I saying that there should be serious punishment for some women who secure abortions? If we want to be logical and honest in responding to the point made by Anna Quindlen, the answer to that question has to be yes; for some women, in some cases. (Of course, after the law has been changed to state clearly that abortion is a crime. I am not calling for a repeal of the ex post facto laws.) The concepts of mitigating circumstances and diminished capacities come into play in determining the punishment for murder, rape, theft, perjury, embezzlement. There is no reason why they should not also come into play when considering a woman who has hired an abortionist.

We can draw lines those lines. Frightened teenagers who have bought into the abortionist's propaganda about an unborn child being little more than a "clump of tissue" should be treated differently from a socialite who uses abortion as a backup form of birth control. But the lines must be drawn. The way to deal with Anna Quindlen's smarmy maneuver in the culture wars is to answer it honestly. Not all women who procure abortions are victims, or guiltless. Yes, some deserve punishment. Not as much as an abortionist who has performed hundreds of abortions, but something serious.

There's more in the links above. (BTW, there are a surprisingly number of intellectually honest pro-lifers, including Catholics, who support "Jail Time for Women Who Have Had Abortions" There are even a few who support death. These could be termed pro-death/anti-life anti-choice pro-life -- being pro-life at the expense of both choice and life. Of course life is more than biological life. Anyone who advocates jail for women who have had abortions is in that respect anti-life.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31