Just a bunch of scrambled thoughts…

Sarah Palin.

I really just want to say those words because Elizabeth Hasselbeck says that all you have to do is say’ Sarah Palin’ and you get attention — and I’m not above wanting a little attention. Especially when I can verbally hassle-back with Hasselbeck. (Elizabeth, not her husband; I’ve met him and he’s a humble man. I can’t imagine how he tolerates her normal rudeness & her pregnancy hormones seem to make her particularly snappish, popping off at the mouth as reactionary as a reptile. That’s how I picture her, with a tiny, primitive, reptilian brain.) Grrrr.

If saying ‘Sarah Palin’ gives me both attention and the chance to vent, well then, I will.

(Now that I’ve typed/said Palin’s name three — and a half — times, I’m wondering if it has the powers of saying Beetle Juice three times and something horrible will appear — like both Palin and Haselbeck.)

Anyway, idiot Hasselbeck could barely allow the question to be formed regarding Ashley Judd’s inclusion of Palin in Judd’s defense of wolves in her PSA for Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund before she had to spit out indignant rage over abortion. It all happened so fast, I was wondering if people were aborting wolf fetuses now… But no, it was just Hasselbeck being an ignoramus. As usual.

Why do those people do that? I mean, stick to the damn issue, will you? The issue was wildlife protection, not the matter of human tissue issues. I get that you are a passionate nutbag of a gal, and your hormones may be insane and all, but can you stop being a rude, interrupting, disrespectful person? Can’t you stay on topic long enough to grasp just the one issue that another brought up and discuss it?

I’m a passionate nutbag of a gal when it comes to being pro-choice, and I do.

I can also grasp the concept that people can and often do have more than one issue they are passionate about — and that often those issues may be or seem to be in conflict with one another. People are complicated like that. Including the most self-aware among us. How we each make peace with those conflicts, how we live with them, is just another slice of complicated human pie. But please, don’t mistake ‘complicated’ for ‘ignorant’ (and think you have to educate or convert us to your way of thinking). And please don’t mistake ‘complicated’ for loud noise to divert us. Your chatter, in either case, is just annoying, unnecessary noise.

And when I think of your immature & rude behaviors, Ms. Hasselbeck, I am always left wondering why you remained on The View and Rosie had to go. At least she let people speak and remained on topic.

It’s your behaviors, not your beliefs, which make me dislike and disrespect you so much, Elizabeth.

I started off saying this was just some scrambled thoughts, some venting, but — unlike Hasselbeck, I do have a point which belongs here at this blog about relationships.

Awhile ago some friends and I were talking about previous bad relationships — our “what was I thinking dating him?!” moments, and we came upon the topic of dating people who have opposing views as you do. For example, can an active Democrat and an active Republican enjoy a happy & healthy relationship? Can a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer make love, not ideological war?

I believe they/you can — if and only if — both behave with respect towards one another.

I, a firm believer in gun control, quite happily dated and was in love with an NRA man.  We knew our votes and competing bumper-stickers cancelled one another’s out; even healthily joked about it to deflect people who tried to stir us up.  Sure, we passionately debated the issue from time to time, as news stories and political coverage prompted the subject.  But we didn’t bring up that difference whenever any other issue came up. We didn’t tag that onto every argument about dirty socks or being late.  We didn’t toss it out there as a joke because it wasn’t a joke to either of us. (And that goes for issues one is passionate about and the other is lukewarm about; such joking seeks to diminish the issue, and, by association, the person with the opinion about the issue.) That sort of kitchen-sinking isn’t respectful and sinks your relationship.

We made peace with our basic philosophical differences because each of us respected, admired, and, yes, was even attracted to the other for their passion about the issue.  We both dug passionate people who were neither ignorant nor apathetic in our causes & opinions.  What would have happened if we had stayed together and had kids, I can’t say… A job took him to another coast and I wasn’t going that way, ya know?  But I still have great affection and respect for him; he feels the same.

The point being that if you can agree to disagree in the most respectful of ways, if you both can manage to not feign respect but carry that respect forth in action everyday, then you don’t need to let the issue separate you.

Let’s face it, some issues may be too big to work past even with respectful actions.  I couldn’t be marred to a pro-lifer, for example.  Not just because I’m a fertile woman who could end up pregnant (quickly knocks wood), but because that subject is one that’s too strongly attached to women’s rights for me and I would end up seeing that man as my oppressor or would-be oppressor.  But I’m self aware enough to know this about me — and I’m sure that’s a mutual feeling on the part of pro-lifers.

So the question for you is, are you self-aware enough to know not just what you are passionate about but also just how respectful you can be coexisting with opposing views?  Do you know where your deal-breaker lines are?

Mine are really clear for me.  I couldn’t deal with the lack of respect Hasselbeck (and Palin) give others; and even if they could change those behaviors, I couldn’t live with their passionate views.  But I would be happier to coexist on this planet with them both if they’d just start giving other people respect.