home

It's a Boy for Bristol and Levi

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:26:51 PM EST
Tags: Bristol Palin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Congrats to Bristol and Levi on the birth of Tripp, a healthy, 7 pound boy.

(It was as long overdue as the start of the singing in the clip from Tommy above...."It's a boy" comes on around the five minute mark.)

No word yet on whether Levi was present for the delivery.

< Physician Resigns, Says Can't Supervise Executions | Ignore Dick Thornburgh >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    It's a Boy for Bristol and Levi | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good for them (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:08:07 PM EST
    A healthy baby is always a reason to celebrate!  Mazel tov, as they say in Wasilla.

    Personally, I would tend to assume the father was present unless I hear something to the contrary.  Although I will anxiously await the results of Andrew Sullivan's investigation just to be sure.

    Why is Andrew Sullivan (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    so invested in this Palin pregnancy story?  

    Christine Craft, a talk show host on KGO in the Bay Area, has been promoting the same suppositions.  

    Now that Palin isn't a VP possibility, it doesn't seem very relevant.

    Parent

    I'm thinking (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST
    Now that Palin isn't a VP possibility, it doesn't seem very relevant.

    It has always been relevant to Bristol and Levi. To the rest of the country, it should have no relevance...ever.


    Parent

    Why is anyone invested in this story? (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:32:39 PM EST
    I mean, from some of the comments I'm reading here, it seems like it just gives people an opportunity to take more cheap shots at all of the people involved.

    Parent
    No one is invested (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:34:49 PM EST
    We report the news and it's in the news. If you're not interested, skip the thread.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, I wasn't suggesting there was anything (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    wrong with your reporting of this news; it was delivered, straight-up, as news should be delivered.

    I was really responding more to the question about why Sullivan is so invested in the story, and noting that some of the responses to the birth news seem unnecessarily cheap, that's all.

    I guess my own reaction to the news is along the lines of, "oh, that's nice;" since I don't know the people involved, I figure that's about all it makes sense for me to say/think about it.

    Parent

    i don't know (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by boredmpa on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:26:05 AM EST
    The last line, intentionally or unintentionally, is more than a bit mischievous.

    "No word yet on whether Levi was present for the delivery."

    Parent

    taken from a news article (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    not mischievous at all -- here

    It's unclear if the baby's father - Levi Johnston - was present.


    Parent
    It raises more unanswered Qs about Palin behavior (none / 0) (#80)
    by SocraticGadfly on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    Such as...

    People originally reported a Saturday birth day, then later changed that to Sunday. A HuffPost blog linking to that People story still has the originally reported Sunday date.

    The NY Daily News, punting or whatever, says "this weekend."

    And, the gov's office won't even release a press statement? Claims the birth has nothing to do with politics? Even though it DID have a PR after Trig's birth?

    I don't want to know what you cooked in your tin foil; was it 3.5 lbs of gray matter?

    For more on the REALITY of unanswered questions, click here.

    Parent

    It's a legitimate subject (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by SocraticGadfly on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:28:13 AM EST
    As someone  who first tracked Palin family births when Trig's parentage started heating up, like Sully, I say it goes beyond McCain's Veep vetting process to actually  digging into who Sarah Palin is before 2012.

    And, as far  as  Cousin Itt's birth today, there's plenty of interest about it, starting from the announcement in People, but WITHOUT pics, to dissing the Anchorage Daily News and more.

    Parent

    My gosh (4.33 / 6) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:50:00 AM EST
    She's an 18-year old girl with extremely marginal celebrity status.  Why on earth would anyone be shocked that there were no pictures in People magazine?  We're not talking about Brad and Angelina here.

    For some people, it seems there is no event so straightforward that it cannot be made more mysterious with some elaborate conspiracy theory.

    Parent

    It is kinda like Brad and Angelina... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    only with a little less wattage.

    Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" prophecy has arrived in force, this is the Palin clan's 15 minutes.

    Parent

    Yeah, it's really freakin' strange (3.66 / 3) (#43)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM EST
    that People mag gave a celb birth announcement. That, like, never happens . . . .

    Tin foil works really well when cooking, not so much when trying to look legit discussing politics/politicians.

    Parent

    You know tin foil from personal experience? (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by SocraticGadfly on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:23:26 AM EST
    That's about the only way I expect you know what you're talking about with either tin foil OR politics.

    AND, as if this blog post really fits the claimed focus of this blog, and then Jeralyn says, oh, no, this place is above talking about Palin family births.

    We can talk about Armando, Wal-Mart and Clorox, instead, speaking of this blog. Have some snark to fill your tin foil hat.

    Parent

    I don't use tin foil for hats (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:56:36 AM EST
    only cooking . . . try it sometime.  

    Parent
    More REALITY, not tin foil hattery (none / 0) (#79)
    by SocraticGadfly on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    People originally reported a Saturday birth day, then later changed that to Sunday. A HuffPost blog linking to that People story still has the originally reported Sunday date.

    The NY Daily News, punting or whatever, says "this weekend."

    And, the gov's office won't even release a press statement? Claims the birth has nothing to do with politics? Even though it DID have a PR after Trig's birth?

    I don't want to know what you cooked in your tin foil; was it 3.5 lbs of gray matter?

    For more on the REALITY of unanswered questions, click here.

    Parent

    You appear to be stuttering (none / 0) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    You've posted the same comment more than once. And, it doesn't make sense either time.

    People originally reported a Saturday birth day, then later changed that to Sunday. A HuffPost blog linking to that People story still has the originally reported Sunday date.

    emphasis added.

    Was it originally reported as Saturday or Sunday?

    Does it matter? What is so sinister about an error on the part of the journalist?


    Parent

    I dunno his deal (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:42:09 PM EST
    but I can tell you this, that rumor was apparently the talk of Alaska well before Palin was nominated for VP.  I can't imagine what made Sullivan go crazy over it like it was a legitimate news story though.

    Parent
    Sullivan's interest was McCain's vetting process (none / 0) (#22)
    by wrisky on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
      The strange (and still peculiar) circumstances surrounding the Palin birth was merely one element of McCain's non-vetting process, according to Sullivan's blog entries. He never asserted Sarah Palin did anything. He did note that the extraordinary circumstances of Trygg's birth were supported solely by Sarah Palin's statements and a vaguely worded "medical record" released in the last days prior to the election. His desire was for more conclusive evidence supporting Palin's narrative before buying into the fantastic story as it was being sold.

      Curiously, the same sort of thing may be taking place here. So far the ONLY source for the birth announcement is a tersely worded bulletin in the online version of People magazine. There was precious little "hard" news in that item. When will the print version hit the check out aisles? Are they the owners of the story for now ?

       She keeps promoting herself as a future possible national candidate. The Babygate story won't go anywhere and neither will she until the story is seriously put to rest. DNA tests for everyone.

     

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:09:20 PM EST
    And the questions surrounding Obama's birth certificate will continue to haunt him for the next eight years.  Or perhaps not.

    There was certainly a time when this rumor made for much water-cooler talk across America.  Nothing wrong with that, it's a titillating piece of speculation.  But 99% of the country has long since shrugged their shoulders and moved on.

    Parent

    I wish mother and baby all the best (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:39:28 PM EST
    and sincerely hope the baby's father will play an active role in his son's life.  I also sincerely hope the parents' plans to finish high school, learn a trade, go to college, whatever, are realized.  Pretty tough becoming a parent at age 18, I'd think.  Hard enough later.

    My good friend's baby sister (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    found herself pregnant and married, at the age of 18.  Absolutely no one thought they were ready for it.  They were managers at a fast food place - so not exactly independently wealthy - and they made the sort of dumb decisions that young people tend to make, like making one of their first big purchases a boat that they had no real need for.

    But 15 years later, they are still happily married, and that little baby is a well-adjusted high school student.  They certainly beat the odds in a lot of ways, but the reality is, you just never know.  And so once someone decides to take that plunge, the best you can do is just wish them good luck.

    Parent

    ahh, they should (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Blowback on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:54:27 PM EST
    just skip all that, finish high school, learn a trade, go to college, whatever.

    Jump right into poliics. Time for a new Mayor of Wasilla about now, eh? (sell a few drugs to pay campaign expenses.)

    Parent

    I wonder if Sarah's (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    New Years resolutions last year included running for VP and becoming a grandmother?

    A timely reminder that anything can happen.

    Thank goodness (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    it's 3-4 years before the next presidential election.  I may have recovered by then!

    Or I may be tapped to be a VP candidate!

    Parent

    Wait just a minute, (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by bocajeff on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    If Sarah Palin would just release Trig's birth certificate from the vault in Hawaii then Vince Foster could rest in peace...

    Whatever...

    Interesting thread (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:16:46 AM EST
    There's something about this topic that brings out the absolute lowest common denominator on the left and exposes it to the light. So many people who are so superior - just say the words 'bristol palin' and right into the gutter we go.

    "babygate, CousinIt, white trash, hillbillies, GILF, incest" - why, it's a veritable study of smug elitism and cheap trash talk from the intellecshuls.

    Yes, yes, I forgot, the Palins 'deserve' it - yawn.

    In case you were wondering why People (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    seemed to have the exclusive on the announcement, and the Anchorage Daily News was shut out ...

    It appears People did have the exclusive, and paid a handsome chunk of change for the exclusive on the baby pictures, too.  Per our friends at Gawker, citing MSNBC's Scoop:

    People, which seems to have the exclusive (baby picture deal?), reports Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnson was born a healthy 7 lbs. 7 oz. Saturday in Palmer, Alaska, with his father's surname. Levi Johnston is scheduled to marry Bristol Palin next year or be shot dead by a shotgun wielding, politically-determined Sarah Palin. It's all part of the Tripp!

    UPDATE: People is indeed now rumored to have paid $300,000 for the pictures. Thank heavens for grandma's drug bust! Reports [MSNBC's] Scoop:

    Sarah Palin stories just didn't sell all that well for the weeklies on newsstands.... The drug-related arrest of Johnston's mother, however, caused the price tag for the photos to go up [from $100k].

    Indeed.  From the same Scoop article:

    "The bidding started well before the baby was born, but once Levi's mom was arrested -- well, then you had a story," says one editor.

    So, for the Palins and Johnstons at least, the whole Instant Happy Family(TM) thing paid off.  300 large, up from 100 before Grandma got busted.

    Now, does the whole delay in bringing the charges against Grandma Johnston sort of make some sense?  Or at least fit better than the lame-o story that first came out, about the Secret Service being in the way of dealing?  Like, maybe, the local cops (trying to stay in Mistress Governor Sarah's favor, unlike her former brother-in-law) let on through some back channel about Grandma Johnston's issues but knew better (or were told to know better) than to bring charges before the election, but then got a reversal of those orders to help plump the baby pics bidding?

    I mean, we've seen a whole lot of manipulation in Alaska government at (the ends of marionette strings held by) the hands of Sarah Palin, all of which tend, in some way, to pour cash and benefits into Sarah Palin's pocket.  Why not this, too?

    Um...okay (none / 0) (#69)
    by ks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    "Now, does the whole delay in bringing the charges against Grandma Johnston sort of make some sense?  Or at least fit better than the lame-o story that first came out, about the Secret Service being in the way of dealing?  Like, maybe, the local cops (trying to stay in Mistress Governor Sarah's favor, unlike her former brother-in-law) let on through some back channel about Grandma Johnston's issues but knew better (or were told to know better) than to bring charges before the election, but then got a reversal of those orders to help plump the baby pics bidding?"

    Do you really think that "sort of makes some sense"?  I dunno...it seems like a heap of very questionable speculations piled on top of one another.

    Parent

    If I were defending Grandma Johnston (none / 0) (#70)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
    you can be sure I'd make that as (at least a subsidiary) argument for why her arrest on the drug-dealing charges two months after the alleged events in question took place, should be thrown out.  Not just stale, but manipulated by the governor (or her minions) to make more money for the exclusive on the baby pictures.

    You think a well-supported argument that the governor was working the criminal justice system for her own personal benefit might result in getting the charges tossed?

    The tough part would be getting the support - but the price going from about 100k before arrest to 300k after seems indicative of something.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#71)
    by ks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    If you were defending her, I'd wish you good luck with that "argument".  You'd need it and then some.  Your "well supported" question seems to be based on wishful thinking and suspect conjecture, at best. Hopefully, her real life attorney is operating on more solid ground.

    Parent
    And your explanation for why (none / 0) (#76)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    there was a two-month delay between acts complained of and arrest is....?

    Parent
    Is Tripp named after Levi's mother? (4.00 / 2) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:46:33 PM EST
    bada-bing!

    No! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST
    He's named in honor of Linda Tripp!

    Bada-bing!

    Parent

    No, his name is (none / 0) (#24)
    by Blowback on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    Tripp L S D Palin

    bada-bing

    Parent

    Tripp? (1.80 / 5) (#39)
    by eric on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15:01 PM EST
    Holy White Trash Central.  I am sorry, but with all of this stuff, the snow machines, the Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus, and the oxycontin drug bust, etc., I can come to no better description of it all.

    There's nothing wrong with the name Tripp (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:01:45 AM EST
    I know a few people with that name and please don't lob personal attacks here. Nasty rumors aren't appreciated either, we have never discussed rumors about Palin's youngest son here.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:19:49 AM EST
    I did not mean to offend.  My apologies.

    In my defense, I didn't make any comments about Sara Palin's youngest son.  Again, sorry.

    Parent

    No? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    If you didn't mean to offend, then what did you mean to do? What is it about your comment that wouldn't be considered offensive to most people if directed at them?

    I hope Tripp never goes looking for newspapers from the day he was born. Imagine the confusion he would have to deal with over all the hateful comments against his birth all because his maternal grandmother had been given the opportunity to campaign for the second highest office in the country.

    I'm particularly surprised at all the opinions being shared by women, many of whom are mothers.  

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#60)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    I apologized.  Why do you have to pile on?

    Parent
    Eric..... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    It is good that you apologized.

    But,this question.."Why do you have to pile on?"..
    is something you should be asking all the people who have been saying crappy things about Bristol Palin, her baby and the rest of her family.

    Imagine how hard it is being an 18 year old unwed mother under normal circumstances and then imagine how it must feel with all the media scrutiny and negative commentary.


    Parent

    As the son (none / 0) (#63)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    of an unwed 20 year-old mother, some 36 years ago, I understand.

    Parent
    Hope Your Mom (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    Got $300,000. as well...   She didn't? How unfair.

    Some here want to make believe that there is no story here, just move along, people. Sarah Palin is now just like anyones grandmother and should be left alone.

    The price paid in pursuit of stardom, too high?

    Parent

    OK... funny (none / 0) (#1)
    by Exeter on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:37:04 PM EST
    I'll give you that.

    Is this an open thread? (none / 0) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    Imo, Andrew Sullivan is just jealous ;-)

    no it's not an open thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    There's one up this morning and another will go up soon.

    Parent
    Good. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:41:34 PM EST
    Now that the mother has been educated in some aspects of reproductive biology, she should be educated in other aspects as well.  Contraception and birth control would be good topics to study.

    Maybe the finer points of family law as well, beginning with child support.  (Unless she plans on joining Levi on the oil rig.)

    No offense intended... (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    I mean no offense, but of all the women I know personally who had unplanned pregnancies -- and I know more than a few -- all of them were using birth control. It's one of the all-too-common jokes that doesn't sit well with me, the assumption that if you get pregnant, it's because you don't know about or don't use bc. It too often seems to be an assumption as to the stupidity of the girl who doesn't know enough to not get herself knocked up... too close to slut-shaming for my comfort.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:17:16 PM EST
    My niece was born clutching her mother's IUD in her little fist.

    Parent
    Ugh, IUDs (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:48:02 PM EST
    are not fun rattles.  What a mental image you enjoy.

    Btw, if you're a guy, hope you know which medications your girlfriend takes that can counteract the Pill.  Fortunately, for my daughter who used to be on daily meds, her gyno gave her that info.  Her meds reduced the probabilities for the Pill from 99% to 79%.

    Parent

    Thank you; yes, "birth control" (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST
    is not 100% reliable, and I hope that all mothers of sons are as wise such as Jeralyn are as assiduous in pointing this out.

    I do a little mathematical exercise in my women's history class of 100 students when, after tracing the complex history of birth control laws, science, myths, and more through American history, we get to 1960 and "the Pill" -- with its 99% reliability.

    Start with 100 college students, count half as virgins (yeh, it gets some laughs), figure that the sexually active 50 students are having sex once a week (more laughs), multiply that by the number of weeks in the school year alone, then take just one percent of that time . . . and the light dawns on the mathematically competent.

    Of course, that means the mathematically competent may be least likely to reproduce.  The rest . . . well, in a state that gets an F in women's reproductive rights and most Planned Parenthood clinics closed, now we see one reason why it's below the national norms here in educational levels and thus income attained by women.  

    But the men meet the national graduation average.  Go figure.

    Parent

    The mathematically competent ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:38:08 PM EST
    ... might note that 50 (assuming all 50 students are women) by 52 weeks (using a whole year for simplicity) by 0.01 = 26 pregnancies in one year among a population of 50 sexually active women on the pill, which is obviously way off.  One obvious mistake is using weeks per year rather than 28-day cycles.

    I respect the point you are trying to make here but you gotta work on that calculation.  

    I worked it out earlier using the Pearl Index equation and got 0.015 pregnancies for the "Method" calc and about 4 for the "actual" calc.   Since "actual" rates include not only common errors and SNAFUs but also intentional non-use, I'd say 4 is high.

    Parent

    Don't knock it. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:30:40 PM EST
    My friend and I didn't get our BC until after our abortions.  (We didn't go for the Instant Happy Family option.)

    We took BC a LOT more seriously afterward and were very successful controlling our fertility.  Scared straight, as it were.  Why were we scared?  We'd seen how unplanned pregnancies often went.  Instant Happy Family! was not our experience.  My own parents went down the Instant Happy Family path.  It was not a positive experience.

    Parent

    For all those speculating the mother (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:45:08 PM EST
    will go on welfare, be aware the county generally requires the mother to name the father of the child; then the county sues him for child support, which goes first to the county.  

    Parent
    And gee, Levi actually went out (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    and got a job! Go figure . . . seems like they are doing the right things so far and have plenty of support, at least on the Palin side of the family. Kinda doubt the Gov is going to kick her child and grandchild to the curb and make them fend on their own, or GASP! make the tax payers support them. That wouldn't be too Republican now would it?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:03:35 PM EST
    But the instant Happy Family (just add a baby!) is more often a myth than reality.

    Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

    Parent

    I think if the worst happens (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    the Palins will take care of their own.

    Parent
    I'm not so sure. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM EST
    Sure that's what they say....

    This is one time I think the press attention could be a good thing.  Perception matters a lot in politics.

    Parent

    What's your basis for (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM EST
    that assumption?

    Parent
    Start with their family history (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:09:25 PM EST
    and say what you want about Palin, but she hasn't really shown any evidence of wishing she could throw her daughter to the curb. What do you base your comments on? What instance(s) made you come to your conclusions/speculations?

    I'm actually surprised at the tone of some of the comments.

    Parent

    No one is talking about (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:58:02 AM EST
    throwing anyone to the curb.  I'm just saying that this situation (young parents, unplanned pregnancy) is about as high risk as you can get.  Even ample resources (Ms. Spears) doesn't ensure success with relationships or parenting.

    Parent
    It also doesn't ensure failure (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MoveThatBus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM EST
    I'm astonished at how judgmental.

    Look at the current statistics of marriage in this country. Adults and planned pregnancy don't ensure success at a higher rate.  I can certainly provide a huge list of examples to back that up, but I'm trusting you don't have to think too hard to come up with your own.

    Ms. Spears is a huge stretch for comparison to the Palins.

    Parent

    My vote is for (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:01:22 PM EST
    the mother to remain single until such a time that she deems the father is a suitable partner and father.

    I've also seen people go with informal support agreements for the sake of "being nice" only to find out that they were expected to "be nice" every time the support was late and so on.  

    Accountability first.

    Parent

    So many assumptions (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    All I've ever heard about Bristol and Levi was that they were already planning to marry when they became pregnant.

    Going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Bristol and Levi are not looking for advice from strangers, well-meaning or otherwise.

    A new, healthy baby boy is part of the Palin and Johnston families. It was nice of them to share that news with the country. They didn't have to.

    Parent

    Wonder if (none / 0) (#44)
    by JThomas on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST
    the baby pictures will end up in People also?
    That will make a nice nest egg for the lucky couple.

    Parent
    They got (none / 0) (#61)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    $300K.

    Parent
    Oh come on (none / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:29:22 AM EST
    They did not name that baby Tripp, did they?  :-)

    Sorry, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#54)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:33:36 AM EST
    I made an ill-considered comment on what is one of the classiest blogs around. Apologies.

    Parent
    I made the same (none / 0) (#59)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    mistake.

    Parent
    Stupid (none / 0) (#64)
    by blueaura on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    I think it's a stupid name.

    Speaking for me only.

    Parent

    Nuns mocked my name (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    in front of grade-school classes, although mine is a saint's name, and my grandmother's name, but not one that was common since.

    After that experience, I never have mocked a name since -- and as a teacher, I see a lot of unusual names these days . . . at least, unusual until some become common, too.  

    For example, I fully expect that the many Shanikkas I see lately will be replaced by many Malias.  You have a problem with that one, too?

    Parent

    Stupid (none / 0) (#72)
    by blueaura on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    I think a lot of names are stupid, like Trig and Track. Well, I should say I "feel" a lot of names are stupid. I freely admit there is no rational reason for liking or disliking most names. Just a personal preference, like food, drink, colors, etc. I'm not going to apologize for my preferences or for expressing them in a harmless way. I would never tell a kid to his face that they have a stupid name or treat them any differently.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have some cheese curds to eat. Mmm.

    Parent

    You may think they're stupid (none / 0) (#73)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    but they could have some significance in Alaska or to the Native American heritage. You're right, it is your preference, but nobody asked you :P (or all those other people who have been making fun of the name in this thread.)

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    I guess that you are not counting mocking TL screen names.  

    Parent
    Me? (none / 0) (#75)
    by blueaura on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    Are you talking to me? I don't recall any instances in which I mocked someone's TL screen name. Of course, those are a choice, unlike names given by parents. :-P

    Parent
    Not You (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST


    Parent
    It's a Boy for Bristol and Levi | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment