Time for you to come up with a cite, Buster. :dubious:
Does *anybody *read?
He provided a Sarah-not-Trig’s-mom post from August 30.
Why am I reading this? If I wanted people arguing circles because they can’t remember what the original point was, I’d talk to my wife.
And Elvis provided a “Russia is right next to Alaska” cite from August 29.
I should have been clearer that I was calling him out for equating either the popularity or the media coverage or, for that matter, the truthfulness of the two issues
IOW, “Mass media cite for the Trig claim, Buster?”
Me neither; but then, we may be the only two sane people reading this thing.
And then *you *asked what it mattered when who said what.
Which you should have known, if you were in the discussion, and which tells you why Steve Douchy saying Alaska is next to Russia is qualitatively different from Palin being a deserving object of ridicule.
And if we get through this, we’re not even going to have great makeup sex.
Are we?
(emphasis added)
It seems like this sums up the attitude of the majority of people in this (and most similar) threads. Sure, there were outliers, but are any of them in the room at the moment?
Seems like the big, scary schism that’s been keeping this thread alive is the difference between Bricker’s complete acceptance of her doctor’s word that it was OK to fly and others’ refusal to accept that it wasn’t a risky thing to do.
I get where Bricker is coming from. Say a video clip came out that showed her taking a Tylenol. He seems to be saying (um, sorry about having to shove my hand up there to speak for you. I washed, really!) that if her OBGYN gave her the go-ahead on that dosage of Tylenol, then she and her doctor made that private decision and their judgment is intact. Lots of people would squeel over her Taking teh Drugs! and consider it an OUTRAGE.
But get the fuck over yourselves, people. You don’t know what transpired between her and her doctor, you don’t know if she gave her the go-ahead. And as long as she did, as long as she was following a doctor’s advice, there is nothing there to get riled about. All you’re doing is farting in the wind like so many reactionary harpies. There’s plenty to hold her in contempt for, but this ain’t one of them.
On the other hand, I daresay that two things work strongly against that. First, as far as I know, there is no medical or physiological condition that made the flight less risky. Not only flying when you’re about to give birth (IIRC), but also when you’re leaking oil.
That she was standing for public office (especially at that level), her judgment in such a situation is worthy of examination, just as Ted Kennedy’s actions on that fateful night.
Furthermore, I understand wanting to be near your doctor (Mrs. Dvl. and I are due next month WOOWOOWOO), but if delivery is imminent, don’t travel. Another hit to her judgment. OK, so she traveled, to disdain the facilities in wherever she was or could have gotten to with less risk than flying all the way back to Alaska really puts the final straw in that poor camel’s toe.
So run back and check out jsgoddess’ list. Can you (honest question here) or anyone figure out who strongly deviates from it? And forgetting for the moment all the other idiocy out there, based on this alone, do you not see how on a spectrum of Tylenol to flying across country with leaking fluid, at some point there is just cause for people to question her judgment, irrespective of her doctor’s consent?
Yes, but one that wasn’t from Palin, or even from the McCain campaign.
And I’m not entirely sure about us. 
The funny thing about my list is it’s the two things she’s denying and calling vicious attacks that I think are fine. It’s the thing that she says is true that I think is awful.
When rumors are more flattering than truth, don’t complain about the rumors!
It was totally from the McCain campaign. Who’s kidding who? But what difference does it make where it came from?
Because the defense offered by RNATB was that the attacks on Palin were at first totally justified, real stuff, and only later morphed into silliness. in other words, her legitimate problems made her a target and then this nonsense stuff had a leg. But it wasn’t that way: the first attacks on her were the desperate smears, based on nothing, and they were followed by the more solidly based attacks.
Discussions here din’t reject the idea out of hand, did they?
Except Trig wasn’t due yet; the delivery wasn’t imminent.
At the end of the day, I have to say that while I might have made a different decsion (or, more accurately, advised my wife to make a different decision) I can’t call “unreasonable” an act which the woman’s own, personal physician called “not unreasonable.”
Assuming that the tone you’re speaking about is a general “Sarah Palin is stupid and evil and mockworthy” tone, well, I don’t think it’s a case that the tone doesn’t exist, so much as that you’re vastly overstating it.
If I may be pompous for a moment, my participation in the SDMB has led me to formulate a theory about message boards and similar conversational media, which is that when someone is in an environment in which the overhwleming majority disagrees with him, and a fringe of that majority disagrees with him in unreasonable, rude, blindly partisan ways; that person tends to conflate the two and start feeling that the overwhelming majority disagrees with him in unreasonable, rude, blindly partisan ways.
Yes, the SDMB is heavily unbalanced towards the political left, so most SDMBers disagree with, and are opposed to, Sarah Palin. People being people, that means that most SDMBers, even ones who are genuinely intellectually honest and well-meaning, are predisposed to believe bad things about her, as opposed to Obama. And people being people, there are a fringe of SDMBers (cough, Der Trihs, cough) who are not only predisposed to believe bad things about her, but will do so with no evidence at all, in rude ways, etc. But the vast majority of SDMB leftists are not without reason. Look at the original topic of this thread. So there was a rumor that Palin might get divorced. How many posters took the rumor as face value gospel truth? How many said something like “if this is true, …”? The overall reaction was “if it’s true, kinda serves her right, because we don’t like her, but it’s just a rumor at this point.”
As for the issue you seem to find most damning, which (I believe) is the Trig-is-Sarah’s-baby rumor, there’s an extraordinarily important point which you keep ignoring: Suppose, for a moment, that the rumor were true. What would that say about Sarah Palin? Something negative? On the contrary, I’d argue that while such a factoid (Sarah Palin’s son is actually her grandson!) is obviously weird and titillating, it would actually be an incredibly noble act, one that would involve huge amounts of sacrifice on her part to better the lives of both her daughter and her grandson. In fact, the most salacious part of the whole thing would be the fact that it would involve her teenage daughter getting pregnant. Which, ironically, actually happened anyhow.
So that rumor appeared, there was no reason to immediately dismiss it as implausible, so we discussed it for a while, tossed around some reasons why it might be true and might not, and it eventually died away. At no point was there a consensus among SDMB leftists that it was true. Nor were there lots of posts where Palin was mentioned in other contexts and people responded by bringing up the Trig issue. Nor, as far as I know, was the SDMB the flash point by which the rumor spread around the world.
Would SDMB leftists have condemned it if some major news organization had reported the rumor as fact, or even likely; or had been involved in actively spreading it? Or if some senator had introduced a bill, claiming it wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular, which would require all VP noms to provide birth certificates for all their children and grandchildren? I’d like to think so, but we’ll never know, because none of those things happened. Most likely, some would and some wouldn’t, because there are no monolithic Usual Suspects.
So, to sum up… bearing in mind that people are people and have foibles and aren’t totally objective at all times… what precisely was so ridiculous about how the SDMB reacted to that rumor and/or the divorce rumor?
Honestly, I’m not paying much attention to that side of the conversation. It seems very persnickety. Certainly I don’t endorse everything that every other SDMB lefty ever says, any more than I should blame you for the way Shodan debates.
There were certainly a fair number of people here, including myself, who thought, at least for a while, that that rumor was plausible. I still think that it was plausible, given the information we had at the time.
Let’s think this over like rational people. I’m not sure you’ve ever quoted directly Dr. Baldwin-Johnson saying Palin’s decision to fly was “not unreasonable,” but I could have missed something. Let’s assume she did say that (I’d appreciate your troubling to cite for me the post in which you directly quoted the doctor, when you get the time). Is that your idea of a strong statement in support of Palin’s truthiness? It sounds like the most wishy-washy support imaginable. It’s like me saying that you’re not precisely a brainwashed fascist swine making shit up right and left. “Not unreasonable”? Is that anything like “not demonstrably batshit-insane”? Like “The Governor was not actually frothing at the mouth when we discussed the wisdom of her flying from Texas, but of course I did not see her. I did not hear any froth being hurled from her mouth, though”? Would you cite that as support from her physician? Would you characterize that last imaginary statement as “Palin’s physician defended her mental stability and specifically ruled out certain clear signs of derangement” or would you conclude as a rational person that the physican was saying the least possible in support of Palin falling short of simply refusing to make any statement at all? Because that’s what I think accounts for her “not unreasonable” remark, which (again) I’d appreciate knowing exactly where and when the physican was quoted as saying it.
Wow. I got bored with this topic four or five pages ago and I started it.
Quick fact check: what was going on? A bit of Googling pulls up a slew of sources, but they all seem fairly partisan (on both sides). I was under the impression that her water broke, that labour was starting, and that delivery was next. (Of course, I wasn’t in the expert position I’m in today, which is mostly relegated to “honey, we have a month to go, shouldn’t we be taking a course or something?” But then again, I’ve read a few books and we did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.)
Anyway, if she just peed herself a little and the whole kerfuffle had nothing to do with her going into premature labor, then ignorance fought.
If she was entering into labor, even the outskirts of it, then we have a reasonable disagreement over what is prudent in that situation. IIRC, it was a month early, and she was flying from Texas to Alaska (then hopping about inside Alaska).
Weigh the doctor’s testimony as you will (which we don’t seem to have. Can the SDMB issue subpoenas?), what about a reasonable person standard? Given the troubled pregnancy (downs syndrome; labour a month early) and the length of the flight, would a reasonable person be surprised if she ended up in the delivery phase in mid-flight?
That’s part of the problem here. You and I are using a “reasonable person” standard, and I think **Bricker **is using a “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard. Given that Palin has every right to decline to share her medical records with the public, we lack the solid evidence that would decide the question beyond any doubt, and **Bricker **is using that lack to say “See, you can’t prove anything, so you’ve been very unfair reaching the conclusions that you have.” Or indeed any conclusions at all.
No, but their intellects are relatively the same.