Rumor Has It

2008-9-6 10:16:00

Let me make just a few clarifications concerning John C's post.

Concerning Sarah Palin, JohnC said:

"I didn't say her water broke, and I don't know as anybody stated that her water broke."

JJ:

You did say she started leaking fluid and most people that have written about this incident say her water broke. Unless we can find the story in her own words it's difficult to figure out exactly what did happen. Apparently her water partially broke or fully broke and apparently her contractions began about that time.

I'm glad to hear you don't buy into this rumor 100% but it did sound like you are seriously considering it. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

I don't think I've seen so much negative publicity put out toward any person in my life in such a short period of time except for maybe Linda Tripp when she revealed the blue dress. What Sarah has going for her, however, is that she has a much more likable personality and is starting out with a lot of good public support. I've heard she had an 80% approval rating in Alaska and it sounds that if she can get the better of the press that she will have a pretty high approval rating as she continues into this campaign. In fact, new figures tell us that she had a larger audience for her acceptance speech by 3 million over Obama. She also has a higher favorability rating than Obama, Biden or McCain.

John asks:

"I wonder if women are able to tell how long the labor will last."

JJ:

I would say that in some cases the answer would be yes and others no. In our case by the time we had our fifth child we had resigned ourselves to the fact that all labors were going to be over 24 hours and this was the case with all seven of my children. If Sarah Palin was in a similar situation, then she could have predicted fairly accurately that her labor would've lasted around 24 hours.

Concerning my comment on John's posting the rumor that the baby was not Sarah's, he asks if I'm accusing him of making this accusation. No, I was just making a statement of fact that you posted the rumor which you did. Whatever you say your motive is in placing that rumor I will accept.

Then John asks:

"Are you accusing me of being malicious?"

JJ:

No. I do not see you as a malicious person. Overall, I think you really want to be helpful whenever possible.

Then John asks:

"Are you accusing me of passing on flimsy evidence as truth? By placing this comment after quoting me, it gives the impression that I'm being malicious and accusatory. I don't appreciate having this picture painted of me and having a place in the archives, whereas my defense is not."

JJ:

While I'm glad to have this clarified and glad to see that you did not intend to spread a rumor, but it was a rumor in my opinion, as it didn't seem to have any hard evidence behind it.

Suppose for instance I had taken some of the rumors about Obama from the tabloids such as he had an affair with Oprah Winfrey and gave sketchy details and ended with saying his statement of innocence makes little sense to me. This would sound like I was thinking the rumor was true. The lesson here isn't that we should never talk about rumors that are going on out there but we must talk about them in a way that doesn't give a lot of credibility to something with very little evidence behind it.

In conclusion, I do not publicly judge what is in another person's heart, but I try to go by the words he has said or written. If the words sound negative I always like to give an opportunity for the person to explain because it's always entirely possible he didn't mean to come across the way I interpreted his words.

Let us try to talk about another rumor in a truthful yet as harmless a manner as possible:

The National Enquirer is coming out of the story that claimed Sarah had an affair with an office worker. Now it matters not whether you love or hate her for it is possible this is true and it is entirely possible it is not true. Until one has some hard facts on this about all an intelligent person can do is just say there's a rumor out there about this and who knows whether it's true or not? In fact, in most situations it is best not to even declare there is a rumor about something so malicious until some hard-core facts are in on the matter. The trouble with a lot of the fringe web sites is they circulate many things that are completely unproven but only serve to back up their belief system. Such an approach is a very dishonest form of writing and communication. To thine own self be true is an eternal injunction for all disciples.