Liadnan

OK, now I feel very guilty about being boggled by Bristol Palin's name on

girlyswot's journal, because, whatever the truth of this, poor kid.

From:

They all seem to have very odd names: I've noted Track, Trig and Bristol so far.

From:

The other two are Willow and Piper, which made me think 'Is there a 1990s US TV series out there with a witch called Bristol in it?' but the closest I could think of was Sydney Bristow who I think is a secret agent anyhow.

From:

Well, those are a little better I think. But surely Trig isn't a name *or* a noun? Someone must know. I have to say I am loving the US election race though; I recently succumbed and bought a digibox - so I could press the red button watching the Olympics - but BBC Parliament were showing live coverage of the Democratic convention last week which was absolutely fascinating - so different seeing it in extenso, complete with gospel-style anthems between speeches (actually pop songs rather than explicitly hymns, but the same effect), rather than in selected highlights on Newsnight or something, where you tend to assume that you must have been shown the *peak* of the slushy - if excellent - oratory rather than actually a representative 5-minute slice.

Evidently I have done no work for weeks, but I have been moving house, and temporarily without a college room, that's my excuse.

From:

Trig pops up as an adjective in the Chalet School books, generally keeping company with 'neat' and describing the clothing of assistant matrons or girls with French ancestry. If I ran into it as a name I think I'd probably assume it was a nickname for someone who was Something Or Other The Third.

How very interesting about the Democratic Convention. I didn't see it, but now wish I did.

From:

ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com

I think that there's a Bristol Bay somewhere in Alaska.

From:

liadnan

I did find myself thinking of a chronicle run by a friend of mine: http://youcalledyourkidwhat.blogspot.com/

From:

My compliments to your friend. I'm still boggling at 'Huke' and 'Lilyella'.

From:

A close friend of mine is a paediatrician, and while working on the neonate unit in Northampton (I think), where children are quite often named/baptised/whatever in hospital, one family insisted firmly that their new baby boy was to be called Porsche. What made it even worse was that when asked to fill in the form it transpired that they were spelling it "Porch" . . .

From:

I don't suppose you've read Richard North Patterson's political novel 'Protect and Defend' have you (about a recently elected Democratic president)? Because his characters line up so nicely with the current presidential race! Secret children, ex-veterans, inspiring youthful Democrats with beautiful wives . . . he must be feeling very pleased with himself.

From:

liadnan

I haven't, no. But I did read this earlier today...

From:

Poor kid is a good first reaction, and it was mine, but if it comes out that a politician was carrying out a fairly major deception on the public, involving a lot of lies, then I'd say she should come out badly. Or am I being old fashioned?

And surely it becomes a legal issue when she picks up her first family allowance, or food stamps, or whatever? Or did the Republicans shoot child benefit?

From:

liadnan

I don't see it as a major deception. As for old fashioned, I think the old-fashioned approach is not to go poking around in irrelevant dirty laundry.

Actually it occurs to me it isn't that remarkable a story. I have at least two friends who discovered in their 20s that their "aunt" was actually their sister, or something comparable.

From:

Questions of maternity are pretty much as fundamental as it gets in human life. Deception on maternity, and reproductive choices, from someone who presumes to legislate on those matters (including the issue of whether someone should have access to education on those choices) is as important as any other lie I can think of.
"Poking around" or, alternatively, "asking for the truth" isonly relevant where someone is pontificating in a given area - I'd be equally interested in her fiscal deceptions as her biological ones. Lying isn't that remarkable - it's just wrong in someone who'll be setting policy for everyone else.

From:

liadnan

I'm afraid I just think that's complete bollocks. Parentage is indeed important but only to those involved, the parents and the child. You don't have any moral right to know about anyone else's biological or adoptive parentage, and quietly adopting one's daughter's child -disabled or not- would be as consonant with an anti-abortion position as being the mother oneself. I don't see lying about what you've done in such a circumstance as remotely reprehensible or a subject of proper inquiry.

From:

Personally, I think it's bollocks to care about who lies about getting a blow job from who in the White House, but that didn't stop the lies being a matter of public interest. I haven't read any of the coverage on this - I'm prepared to believe it's as slavering as the Lewinsky coverage was, and I'm sure I'd find it distasteful.

Let's leave "moral rights" out of this - I'm not sure who's morals we're talking about. But to make a decision, I want to know if someone's a liar, and will lie to the press, the voters, and her employers.

Do I have the moral right to know about someones's sex life? If they're straight, gay, bi or S/M? Hell no. Do I have the moral right to know if they're lying about it? I'd say so.
Do I have the moral right to know about someone's religion, Protestant, Catholic, Islamic? Nope. Do I have a right to know they're lying about it? I'd say so.
Do I have a moral right to know about someone's parentage? Nope. Do I have a moral right to know if I'm voting for a liar? I'd say so.

From:

But to make a decision, I want to know if someone's a liar, and will lie to the press, the voters, and her employers.

One of the things I find rather batty in the conventional media justification for running prurient stories about the private lives of public figures is the expressed assumption that people who lie about one thing will of necessity lie about everything else, even if the motive for one set of lies is diametrically opposed to the motive for any other postulated set of lies. It assumes that everyone who might say to the Gestapo, "No, haven't seen any Jews round here" would automatically fiddle their income tax.

From:

Congratulations for going from A-Nazi in nothing flat.
Perhaps it's more proportionate in this case to say that someone who would lie about the number of dependents they had might lie elsewhere on their tax declaration.
Although, hey, come on, lying about your taxes isn't that bad, we've all done it, huh? And if you let the odd whopper slide by to the tax man, well, surely no one gets hurt when you fiddle your insurance?And let's face it, not all of the laws apply to you, do they? And killing one little Jew, well, it's not as if you're running a concentration camp now, is it?

From:

Actually, I have never lied on any tax declaration. YMMV.

From:

Delighted to hear it.

But slightly confused, since I never said you had. Or that you'd fiddled your insurance, or killed anyone.

Given which, the personal shot of "YMMV" is sort of superfluous.

The way the commenting thing tends to go is you make a statement, such as:
"It assumes that everyone who might say to the Gestapo, "No, haven't seen any Jews round here" would automatically fiddle their income tax."

I counter that with an argument drawn from my original comment (that I'd want to know if someone running for election was lying about their number of dependents, such as:
"Perhaps it's more proportionate in this case to say that someone who would lie about the number of dependents they had might lie elsewhere on their tax declaration."

and then you comment on that.

Coming back with a non-sequitur and a personal insult doesn't really leave us with anywhere to go, and doesn't do much to convince me of the strength of your original argument.

From:

Perhaps your statement that "I never said you had" fiddled taxes might be more convincing if you hadn't said, "Although, hey, come on, lying about your taxes isn't that bad, we've all done it, huh? " How does my responding specifically to your cheap gibe constitute a non-sequitur?

Also, your point about the dependents and the tax returns makes no sense whatsoever. We now know, in fact (for the inconvertible reason that Bristol Palin is known to be 5 months pregnant, which means she cannot have given birth 4 months ago) that the whole story is a malicious falsehood being spread for political reasons.

Your justification for public discussion of this nasty piece of gossip was that if true it would have shown Sarah Palin to be a liar, which would in your view unfit her for public office even if the lie concerned were intended to protect the privacy of a minor child of the family. This you justified on the tenuous grounds that such a lie, if told, would require her to make a false income tax declaration. That second leap doesn't work at all:people can lie to their neighbours and tell the truth to the tax man, Tax returns do not necessarily require one to state how many dependents one has (it depends on the relevant tax structure). A minor child's infant child bing brought up in the household of the minor's parents is likely to< i>be for tax purposes legally and properly their dependent for tax purposes.

But as we now know, the only people lying in this particular case are the people who made up the original story and those who passed it on, not caring whether it was true or false.

From:

jen-c-w.livejournal.com

YMMV??? Help me out here, I am not down with da kids.
Anyway, as the Trig was born in April, and the daughter is now said to be 5 months pregnant, the story's clearly baloney anyway.

From:

liadnan

Your mileage may vary.

From:

nwhyte

I couldn't agree more. Personally I believe her story - she is an adult woman who had already had at least four pregnancies, so I think she knew exactly what she was doing when she decided to fly back to Alaska to give birth, and it isn't really anyone else's business. The Kos piece, gloating over dribbling amniotic fluids and plump teenagers, is pretty disgusting.

From:

Yes, I agree about the article. Presuming that she wasn't in fact pregnant - and even if she was - that poor teenager.

From:

liadnan

Kos does have a habit of pushing me to the right whenever I read it...

From:

Agreed on all counts. It's a disgusting story to spread irrespective of whether true or not because of the damage it does to two minors. Also, if true it doesn't - as alleged - prove Palin to be any form of hypocrite: it strikes me that the alleged behaviour is entirely consistent with her stated moral position on abortion, birth control and the use of shame as a technique to deter teenage sexual experiment, with the need to handle the consequences where the deterrent fails in the least damaging way consistent with the position taken on the other issues. If she gets in, MCCain snuffs it and she manages to get enough supreme court appointees through to repeal Roe-v-Wade then plenty more mothers/grandmothers will be forced into this position, and if (a fact on which we have no evidence) she has herself been in such a position at least it would save her from the accusation of legislating in respect of circumstances for which she had no personal knowledge.

From: