I did some research and discovered that apparently a contributor to the Huffington Post said that Sarah Palin is the first politician actually trying to increase the population of retarded people. That is certainly a statement made in apparent ignorance of the value that you and Palin are pointing out. We would all be better off if we understood our mutual dependence, and if we did not treat dependence as something characteristic only of undesirable people–as if, for instance, we ourselves are not just as dependent. Or as if dependence is itself undesirable, when it can be (is?) something necessary, even beautiful.

On the flip side, does the fact that she has a child with disabilities earn her extra points, somehow? I guess her statement sounds a little bit exploitative– people like to cast themselves as victims (something she herself has done quite a lot), and here she can claim a lot of “victim” mileage via her disabled son, it seems. That “poor us” tone kind of grates on my nerves, but you are right that the points she makes are nonetheless true, as far as the world being better, not worse, for Trig (and others like him).

Again, I liked your post and the points you make are important. It’s a good reminder, and I appreciate your taking the opportunity to “salvage” something good.

So if it is the case that she is making up Trig being a victim, that lessens her charm factor. However, I still enjoy her way of talking about Trig and people with disabilities, so there’s something to be salvaged.