Beware Of The Dog: Why Ed Rendell Should Get A Pass On This “No Life/No Family” Thing And Why The Rest Of Us Should Take Our Friggin’ Skirts Off Already
Alright, can we just stop pretending that if you make a decision to have family that you can do every other thing in the world as well? Because it’s just not true. Sorry, Breeders, you’ve made some bad (or good) choices and, well, there’s only so many hours in the day; raising kids, we’ve been told (over and over and over) is hard! And one must prioritize. So right now, while every pandering talking head in the world is lambasting Ed Rendell — who, it must be said, really does mean well, really he does, he was trying to, uh, pay the lady a compliment of a sort — let’s lay it all out: Yes, saying that Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who was picked for Obama’s top Homeland Security post, was a perfect fit for a demanding job because she had “no life” and “no family” was perhaps… insensitive. To her womb, to her parents, to anyone who said no to the opening question in this post. But — and here is the thing — was he incorrect? Probably not. Because guess what? You cannot do it all. Even if you have a dick. Are we to think that any political leaders have not made sacrifices that their children and families must bear? Are we really that stupid and blind? Does a megastar professional career in any arena not equal de facto that someone else is going to have to shore up the parent duties that you’re missing? Come on. Seriously. Come ON.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
i do not have children and i enjoy the benefits of an unfettered life.
All them kid wranglers end up too tired and sad to ever have friends and when you corner em they claim how great it is…almost to the degree that you feel they’re tryin to trick you into making the same life shackling blunders they have condomlessly stumbled into.
sorry, i want more booze, sex and money out of my life to have kids.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
buddy…let me know how that’s working out for you when you’re 64.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I don’t have/want kids. I have a dog, and that is enough for me. And dogs are even better when you’re old. Not to pass judgement on those with kids, it’s just not for me, and it’s not for everybody.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
More specifically I was referring to the choice of booze / sex / money over having kids. I agree it’s not for everybody…nor should it be.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
This is a case of someone (announcer) taking their opinion way too far. He said this, which means, this, and implies that, which means THIS offa that.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I can’t believe none of you went for the low hanging fruit: IE Chertoff and having kids.
Clearly, that guy was helping someone with their homework or changing diapers or working out the family plan on T-Mobile when he should have been working 20 hours a day.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Oh who cares. Ed Rendell’s mouth is always getting him in hot water. The guy speaks his mind, at least more than most politicians are willing to do.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I agree with everything this post says. The kicker to being single and working when everyone else has kids is that you get dumped on to do everything – stay late, travel, work holidays. You actually have a life, but it is deemed not as important as those who have reproduced.