I was aware of the context in which Palin made that statement, because I've been reading a bunch of stuff about it, like I do with almost everything else I post here. Maybe I should have been more clear about that when I quoted that, but I write less formally for my blog than I would for a newspaper op-ed.
I guess the part that I was thinking about was not the fact that her son was a veteran and she had been asked not to speak overtly about veterans, but more the implication that someone is trying to take her son's military service and what it represents away from her, as his mother. I don't understand how someone could take her son's service away from her son, so I certainly don't see how someone could take her son's service away from his mother, since it is her son's service, not hers.
Does that make more sense?
I felt like she was saying like she served America vicariously, through producing a son that through his own decisions served in the American armed forces. And maybe she thinks she did, but my larger point is that pride in your child's actions, no matter how virtuous those actions, is not a reason or excuse to live vicariously through their actions.
She had a child, and is proud of that. Ok, good. Her child decided to go into the military, and she is proud of that. Ok, good. She feels like someone is trying to make her less proud of her son's actions--that's not good, but instead of saying that she's proud of her son's actions and no one can take his service away from him, she says that no one can take her son's service away from her.
I would have had much less of a problem with that quote if it had read, "Say what you want about me, but I raised a combat vet, and no one can take his service away from him, or my pride in his service away from me."
I think I still would have had a small problem, though, because: - I do not believe that people would be able to take her son's pride in his service away from him even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried. - I do not see evidence that people would be able to take her pride in her son and his service away from her even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried (in fact, tens of thousands of people cheering for her pride in her son and his service would have the opposite effect, I believe). - People can believe that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is wrong, or that war in general is wrong, or that America in general is wrong, without taking her son's service, or his pride in it, or her pride in her son's service, away from her. Just because some people may believe that war is shameful or evil, that doesn't obligate Sarah Palin, or her military son, to agree with them, just because they heard an opinion they disagreed with. Likewise, those who are anti-war are under no obligation to agree with the Palins that war is just and military service is something to be proud of. Saying "no, I don't believe anyone should be proud of military service," should not automatically make his pride in a decision he believes in and made himself wither and die away in his heart.
no subject
I guess the part that I was thinking about was not the fact that her son was a veteran and she had been asked not to speak overtly about veterans, but more the implication that someone is trying to take her son's military service and what it represents away from her, as his mother. I don't understand how someone could take her son's service away from her son, so I certainly don't see how someone could take her son's service away from his mother, since it is her son's service, not hers.
Does that make more sense?
I felt like she was saying like she served America vicariously, through producing a son that through his own decisions served in the American armed forces. And maybe she thinks she did, but my larger point is that pride in your child's actions, no matter how virtuous those actions, is not a reason or excuse to live vicariously through their actions.
She had a child, and is proud of that. Ok, good.
Her child decided to go into the military, and she is proud of that. Ok, good.
She feels like someone is trying to make her less proud of her son's actions--that's not good, but instead of saying that she's proud of her son's actions and no one can take his service away from him, she says that no one can take her son's service away from her.
I would have had much less of a problem with that quote if it had read, "Say what you want about me, but I raised a combat vet, and no one can take his service away from him, or my pride in his service away from me."
I think I still would have had a small problem, though, because:
- I do not believe that people would be able to take her son's pride in his service away from him even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried.
- I do not see evidence that people would be able to take her pride in her son and his service away from her even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried (in fact, tens of thousands of people cheering for her pride in her son and his service would have the opposite effect, I believe).
- People can believe that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is wrong, or that war in general is wrong, or that America in general is wrong, without taking her son's service, or his pride in it, or her pride in her son's service, away from her. Just because some people may believe that war is shameful or evil, that doesn't obligate Sarah Palin, or her military son, to agree with them, just because they heard an opinion they disagreed with. Likewise, those who are anti-war are under no obligation to agree with the Palins that war is just and military service is something to be proud of. Saying "no, I don't believe anyone should be proud of military service," should not automatically make his pride in a decision he believes in and made himself wither and die away in his heart.