 |
We were introduced to the Palin family penchant for tattoos when Levi Johnston was seen with Bristol's name inked (as Sarah Palin would say) on his ring finger. Tattoo experts say that it is not new, ( it was not a sudden job for the RNC) and implies his long-term seriousness and commitment to Bristol.
A similar tattoo story was disclosed in this video, where Sarah Palin mentions her son having acquired two. She lightly tried to dissuade him from getting them, but then was obliging (proudly so) because of their imagery - one of Alaska, another of the Fish for Jesus.
This reminded me of the strange moment in Dinesh D'Souza's book "What's so great about America", near the very end, when he talked about the great freedom of expression that America allows her citizens by, amongst other things, allowing youth to sport body piercings! So much freedom there!
But, Palin's disclosure was made in a church, after all. And tattoos are controversial amongst devout Christians, especially those that seem to take the word of God literally, as does her former church, the Assembly of God, where she gives this speech. She seems to have ignored the Leviticus 19:28 command: "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord. " And various New Testament verses including1 Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19 which talk about the body being the temple of God, and not to harm it.
I understand there is a certain working class valor to tattoos, especially with soldiers marines, construction workers and other rough trades. But, a tattoo is still a sign of rebelliousness, and I should add, uncouthness. It was surprising to hear conservative (or Republican) Vice President nominee Palin talk so freely of her son's tattoos in front of a group of young men in her church, presumably also conservative, just a short while before her selection as McCain's running mate. But then, since her son is so patriotically exhibiting Alaska, and devoutly displaying Christ, then there are a thousand reasons to excuse this breach. Just like what she's done with the story of her pregnant daughter.
I wonder how many other odd stories we will be privy to regarding Sarah Palin? It does seem, though, the real shockers are out of the way. Oh yes, there is that mention of her husband who is "often around the house." What a strange way for a man to spend his time, "often around the house." Isn't this a sign of the male who has relinquished, rather selfishly, the tedious (or is it exciting to Sarah Palin?) job of bringing home the bacon? How can one trust a family where the man is "often around the house?"
More stories like this, and the original explosive entry of Sarah into the public sphere begins to get dim. There really is something to the adage: look before you leap (or choose, in this case.)
Ilana Mercer writes about "The Talk" she gave her daughter at the appropriate age. She has linked to an eloquent article of hers about bringing back the word "bastard" and also the shotgun wedding, to spare families of a "deep, abiding, disgrace."
"But, on what basis?" I kept asking. Why shame and disgrace? What is shameful and disgraceful about having a baby, by any means: out-of-wedlock, artificial insemination, sperm donor? Mercer wasn't able to elucidate what principles render a bastard disgraceful.
And sure enough, Palin's soon-to-be grandchild who was conceived by a young unmarried couple, a situation Mercer apparently abhors, didn't deter her from writing this glowing article about Sarah Palin. (But Mercer makes a disclaimer in her original post, which neatly gives her the liberty to write the glowing article on Sarah's endless abilities.) Besides compartmentalizing Palin's personality, the cause of her accomplished political life on the effects of her daughter's personal life is thus cleverly avoided.
I could have predicted this capitulation. Basic issues like marriage, homosexuality, feminism, (and tattoos and body piercings!) take a back burner for modern people's infatuation with the latest drama. After all, the age-old stodgy caution and patience is a thing of the past. Palin showed us that when, instead of spending a few years with her family, house-cleaning - both literally and metaphorically - she opted for the immediate excitement of the game. And I would say that most women these days are variations of Sarah.
Yes, tattoos, man often about the house, out-of-wedlock grandchild, are all part of the package of the modern life - you may have one, or all of them, and there's nothing disgraceful about that in the mores of the modern world. It is just part of the change, as Palin tells her evangelical proteges in the video.
Women can do what they want and men can just hang on to those apron strings (coat tails?), and babies are cute and cuddly however they come. Bastard, shame and disgrace are but words. Anyway, those Sarahs can always turn things around!