Skip to main content

Anatomy of a Rumor: Down Syndrome and the Palins

Out of a sense of decency, Sen. Barack Obama has said that the children of politicians should not be hauled into the bloody political ring, even when they embarrass their parents, as children will sometimes do. It is a solid rule to follow: The sins of the children, provided they have reached the age of reason, should not be visited upon their parents – even when their parents are politicians.

These glad tidings have not reached some of Obama’s supporters.

Immediately after Sen. John McCain announced that he had chosen Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin to be his Vice President on the Republican Party ticket, rumors began to fly. Progressive blog sites not kindly disposed to Republicans – DailyKos, www.barackoblogger.com, The Huffington Post, some in the mainstream media and their local echo chambers – sniffed out a rumor, since shown to be false, that the mother of Mrs. Palin’s newborn Down Syndrome child was her daughter.

No self respecting journalist would print such “news” on such slender evidence as was available at the time the rumor was launched by progressive take-no-enemy bloggers.

Pictures of Mrs. Palin’s daughter showing a possible pregnancy bump were brought forward to ignite the rumor. Pictures of Mrs. Palin were shown that did not suggest she was pregnant. That was the extent of the evidence upon which the rumor mongers built their case that the Down Syndrome child was conceived and born by Mrs. Palin’s daughter and not, as claimed, by Mrs. Palin. Of such wisps of smoke are hangman’s nooses woven.

No matter, the speculators were in full throttle days after the Republican VP candidate had appeared with Sen. McCain.

In pursuit of the false rumor, the rumor mongers bumped at last into a fact. This is the way it usually happens with those who wish to braid a rope of rumors with which they may hang their enemies.

In order to rebut rumors that Mrs. Palin falsely claimed to have born a child to protect her daughter, Mrs. Palin announced that her daughter – the self same daughter who was supposed to have delivered the Downs Syndrome child – is five months pregnant, thereby delighting Mrs. Palin’s enemies. Mrs. Palin’s enemies were not delighted because their suspicions about the birth were exploded when it was announced that Mrs. Palin’s daughter was pregnant. They did not say to each other, “Good thing that vicious rumor, that insubstantial wisp of smoke, has now dissipated.

Something else tickled them.

Over the weekend, Michael Moore, the documentarian, was full of joy at the prospect of Hurricane Gustav wrecking havoc on New Orleans because this would demonstrate that there is a God in Heaven who feels about Republicans, then having their convention near the upper Mississippi, as he does. But Moore’s joy was nothing compared to the hearts that swelled with schadenfreude at the news that Mrs. Palin’s daughter was having a baby out of wedlock.

Why this joy?

Mrs. Palin is a supporter of abstinence as a means of birth control, and her daughter’s out of wedlock birth demonstrates beyond a doubt that abstinence, say the progressives, “does not work.”

Well now, if one does not practice abstinence, one cannot enjoy the fruits of abstinence. That seems simple enough. It’s quite obvious to anyone but the rope braiders that if a person enrolled in an abstinence program does not abstain from sex, they will incur the risks of pregnancy. Under such circumstances, it is not the program that has failed but the person who has not abstained that has failed.

The same would hold true in any birth control program. We do not say of those who have failed to use birth control methods when available that they have become pregnant because the methods “do not work.” They work when they are used and do not work when they are not used. In the same way, abstinence works when it is practiced, and it does not work when it is not practiced. The user failure rate for abstinence is, according to one reliable study, between 26 and 86 percent, somewhat higher but not significantly different than than the condom user failure rate falling between 12 and 70 percent. Abstinence is more complex and involves “negotiating skills” that are often poorly taught.

The “happy ending” to the Palin story is that the baby will live in a traditional setting with married parents. And that beats abortion, the real measure of failure in birth control processes..

Someone should tell the schadenfreuders.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don -

Since you linked over from my post here, I just want to make it clear that, while I see the connection, the issue you've addressed here is not the one I've raised.
Don Pesci said…
Agreed. But it helps to have all points of views ventilated. And here are in the piece you've comented on here shards of information that have not been presented on other sites. We are after the truth, right?
Don Pesci said…
Chris,

Naturally I am not accusing you of the wretched behavior of others (we can agree not to call them "sins"), who are specifically mentioned in the blog. You are too honorable for that. But I should cal to your notice that the piece does partly answer the accusation of those who insist that Abstaining from sex before marriage does not work. It works when you work at it.
Anonymous said…
Yeah abstaining is the only 100% method of birth control.

As a policy, it's much less effective than condoms in most neighborhoods, because the kids ain't making the policy...
Don Pesci said…
The failure of the policy, when it fails, really has more to do with the failure to teach the "negociating skills" necessary to make it effective.
Anonymous said…
Yeah, not so much Don. Perhaps true in some quarters but, really not in a lot of others.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p