• on a comment on Becoming what you hate over 5 years ago

    Actually, the chances of a 17 year old having a Downs' baby are very, very slim. It is strongly correlated with having an older mother. That doesn't mean older mothers can't have healthy babies -- they do, all the time -- it just means that the VAST majority of Down's babies are born to mothers age 35-40+. It has to do with the aging of the eggs.

    I find the whole "Trig is Bristol's baby!" thing close to absurd just because of the medical unlikelihood of it. I think it should be pretty obvious Trig was born to the 44 year old Sarah and not the 17 year old Bristol.

    Check this out here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Triso my21_graph.jpg

  • George Allen, in the 2006 US Senate race in Virginia.

    But I'm not sure I get your point -- he torpedoed HIMSELF by using a racist slur(and a completely stupid and inappropriate one at that...)

    A better example might be someone like Kerry, who had his honorable service targeted and dragged through the dirt. Not that I really think it harmed him in the long run but it must have hurt like hell while it was happening.

  • Sadly, research has shown a lot of teenagers want babies, or think they do. Most modern sex ed classes include training on what it's actually like to care for an infant, as a way to try and get these girls to really think about what they're doing instead of just going "I want a cute baby everyone will coo over and that will love me unconditionally!"

    In fact, in light of the timing of the arrival of her sixteen-years-younger baby brother and her own pregnancy, I sort of get this impression of her going "Trig is so cute! I want one of my own!" Maybe as an attention-getting ploy, too.

    Not intending any kind of attack on Bristol with this -- just providing some background on the teenage pregnancy problem.

  • The timing doesn't work. She would have had to have delivered Trig and then IMMEDIATELY gone out and gotten pregnant again.  I'm moderately sure there's some kind of hormonal protection in place that makes it highly unlikely a woman will conceive again immediately after giving birth.

    Most likely her Mom delivered Trig, and Bristol went "He's so cute! I want one of my own!" and went out and got one.

    That's what I'd believe about the timing, anyway. Could be completely off base, of course.

  • Agreed. Mojo'd to help compensate.

  • I believe what the poster was saying was that the Dem bounce from their convention would even out with the Rethug bounce from THEIR convention, and so to see if any real changes came out of the conventions, we have to wait until they're both over and there's been a little time for everyone to settle down.

    Seems very sensible to me, even if it was awkwardly worded.

  • SIGH

    Let's try it this way:

    "If you're truly post-racial, Obama's skin is irrelevant to his stark lack of qualifications for the position in question."

    Doesn't sound too good, does it?

  • The point being made is that no matter which team wins, it will be a first for American politics: Either the first African-American President, or the first female Veep.  Barack's nomination itself was historic; not true of Palin. But either ticket is now in position to claim a "first" if elected:

    Dems: "Vote for us and put a black person in the White House! Make history!"

    Rethugs: "Vote for us and put a woman in the White House! Make history!"

    What really burns my crumpets is that we could have had two-in-one on the Dem ticket, and for no sensible reason I can see, we don't.  

  • ....

    Unlikely.

  • It's not her record that attracted McCain (and Rove) -- it's her stand on issues conservatives care about. She's just about perfect in that regard, AND she's a woman! If she had, like, 20 more years experience she'd have been absolutely perfect for pandering, NOT to Hillary's women, but to the conservative base.

  • If he had picked, oh, Colin Powell?

    He might have gotten my vote with that choice, pander or no pander.

  • Well, after the Democrats blew their chances at doing this completely, I definitely feel the emotion behind the "Serves the Dems right that the Rethugs saw the moment and took advantage." I mean, I won't vote for her (Creationism? Puh-lease...) but really, the Dems had a chance to put Hillary up there somewhere on the ticket and chose not to.

    Just put it down to the Rethugs perpetually being better as sensing and seizing the mood of the electorate than the Dems.  

    Anyway, she's not the first case of a woman spitting on the people who gave her a chance to succeed -- Phyllis Schlafly, anyone? Making opportunities for women means making opportunites for all women, even the unpleasantly hypocritcal ones.

  • "If McCain really wanted to excite the nutjob conservative base, he had far better choices than Sarah Palin."

    Can I ask who you have in mind?

  • He didn't pick her ONLY because she was a woman. She's a woman who is:

    1. Fanatically pro-life
       2. Godfearing Christian; wants creationism taught alongside evolution in science class.
       3. Gun nut.
       4. Very pro-business, not at all environmentalist. (Re: Drilling in Alaska)
       5. Seen as a reformer and sincere tax-cutter

    If just gender were the issue, McCain had a much larger field to draw from, but the other women had conservative problems -- KBH is pro-choice, for example.  

    I'm convinced Palin's radical pro-life stance is just as important as her gender.  None of the men being considered had anywhere near her conservative "cred", if you will.

    Her being a woman was icing on the cake, no doubt, but it's definitely not the sole reason she was chosen.

  • I respectfully disagree.

    While I'm sure her being a woman played a large role, I don't think her impeccable (to them) credentials as a conservative can be overlooked:

    1) Fanatically pro-life: (This was crucial; reason why it wasn't Lieberman.)
       2. Godfearing Christian; wants creationism taught alongside evolution in science class. (This is why no Romney -- Mormonism is seen as weird.)
       3. Gun nut.
       4. Very pro-business, not at all environmentalist. (Re: Drilling in Alaska)
       5. Seen as a reformer and sincere tax-cutter

    These are the areas we should be hitting her on, not her gender or her looks.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads