Saturday, August 16, 2008

John Edwards Affair; Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Rush Limbaugh and Assumptions

"Assumptions are sometimes useful, sometimes worthless. Assumptions based on someone's lies should be labeled, 'ABOSL'."
--DBKP's Guide to the Aspiring Writer

We always read the comments to stories here at DBKP. In fact, one of our mantras is, "The comments are part of the story".

Another is, "Sometimes, the comments are better than the story".

One comment alerted us to a story, Is Rush Limbaugh Reille Hunter´s Sugar Daddy?, written by Dee, at Immigration Talk with a Mexican American. Dee is anything if not economical: she shoehorns a lot into her story.

Think of Edwards story. The timeline! He is convinced it is NOT his baby because his last quickie with her was in April. She is not impregnated until late May. His ego does not allow him to consider IVF.

We mention this because it points out a danger that all writers--DBKP included--face; i.e., of basing assumptions on a public figure's lies. The lies are found out and POOF!, there goes all your theories.

In the John Edwards scandal, the biggest two assumptions were made by the Mainstream Media and plague them today as they struggle to explain to their readers why they didn't trust them with information on this story before August 8.

The first: that John Edwards told the truth. The second assumption was that because the National Enquirer reported the information, it couldn't be trusted, not even enough for them to do their own investigations, prior to late July.

As we point out in our soon-to-be published writer's guidelines: Assumptions are sometimes useful, sometimes worthless. Assumptions based on someone's lies should be labeled, 'ABOSL'.

NOW, we're not picking on Dee: we're sure that after you read her story, you'll come to the conclusion that she's got her tongue in her cheek. She seems so pleasant in her comments to DBKP's stories, we're sure of it.

One item did strike us, Dee's quote that, "The odds of a first time pregnancy after 40 are astronomical."

From Older mothers - facts and figures:

Additionally, there is an almost 50% increase from ten years ago in the number of women over forty who are now having babies. The rate for women aged 40 and over increased fastest, by over six per cent from 11.5 per 1,000 women aged 40-44 in 2005, to 12.2 in 2006.

The number of live births in England and Wales to mothers aged 40 plus was 12,103 in 1996 and 23,706 in 2006.

Again, here's more info from the United Kingdom. From
Parenting: Age Of First Time Mothers Shows A Sharp Increase

The number of women having children in their 30s and 40s has climbed steadily over the last 20 years at a time when the overall birth rate has been dropping, in 2003, the fertility rate for women aged 35-39 and over 40 both increased almost 8%.

Later pregnancies are particularly evident among the wealthier social classes, where women persue a career before embarking on motherhood. The only draw back to later parenting is that as a woman gets older their fertility declines.

We realize that the data's from the U.K., not the USA. And there's precious little data about the pregnancy rates of mistresses over 40, but perhaps this might make a good project for some enterprising blogger.

The poster pictured at the beginning of this story? It's not there exclusively in reference to Dee or the Mainstream Media.

It hangs on the side of a computer at DBKP.

by Mondoreb
image: wsmonty

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave your name/nic.
We've changed the comments section to allow non-registered users to comment.
We'll continue like that until it's being abused.
We reserve the right to delete all abusive or otherwise inappropriate comments.