Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Whitest Columnist U Know Previous entry: CSA Week #2

A little holiday skepticism

Since the 4th was a Sunday, it looks like everyone’s basically taking today off, so I thought I’d skip anything news-driven and instead whip out a little skeptical posting.  Sadly, I’ve been avoiding this somewhat out of cowardice, but frankly, that’s no excuse.  Most people are in the “ignore them and they’ll go away camp” when it comes to conspiracy theorists, but I’m not, so I’m a perfect person to try to push back against them.  And I want to push back against the zombie conspiracy theory about Sarah Palin’s 5th child, Trig. Andrew Sullivan just won’t let this one go, and the conspiracy theory mania is spreading amongst people I otherwise respect.  The theory, in case you haven’t heard it (but I’ll bet you have, which is why simply ignoring conspiracy theories doesn’t work), is that Sarah Palin only pretended to have her son Trig, but was actually covering up for Bristol’s pregnancy.

The “evidence” for these claims:

1) That Bristol took some time off school in 2008. This is the least interesting evidence to the theorists, from what I can tell.  The reason is that focusing on Bristol is rhetorically unwise of them, because if you believe the theory, you have to accept Bristol conceived a second time while still pregnant.  So they shy away from this one. 

2) That Bristol cuddles Trig a lot. You rarely see this stated so bluntly, but theorists enjoy putting up pictures of Trig being cuddled in public by Bristol, implying that she, as the mother, cannot resist this.

I’m forced to point out that an alternative theory is that people in general like to cuddle babies.  And that families that have much-older daughters and infants at the same time are known to employ the daughters in baby care.  The pictures of Bristol cuddling Trig invariably are taken when Sarah is doing something like, oh, speaking at a convention, and therefore can’t be holding a baby right that second.  The natural person to shove the baby off on is Bristol. 


3) Palin didn’t show very much.
It’s interesting to me that the theorists focus most of their energy on the Sarah Palin half of the equation, because focusing on the Bristol part would actually produce better evidence, if this deceit actually occurred.  Even though I’d imagine it’s harder to prove that someone wasn’t pregnant than that someone was, they find way more emotional satisfaction going after Sarah Palin, so they do that. 

Anyway, I find the evidence that Sarah didn’t show to be meager and embarrassing.  It was remarked upon at the time that she didn’t show much, but people didn’t seem to make much of it.  I suspect this is because they were willing to accept that some women don’t show very much.  I remember a woman I knew in high school talking about how she never wore maternity clothes, and to look at her, you would have never known.  On litbrit’s post, you get women using a bunch of “I” statements, as if this is proof.  For instance:

at that point [seven months], i couldn’t see my feet without considerable effort, and i kept bumping my belly into things because i wasn’t used to the bulk.

That some or even most women blow up during pregnancy isn’t proof that all do.  One in 600 women who give birth didn’t even know they were pregnant. There’s even a TV show about it!  In most cases, it’s a matter of denial, and in some, the women involved are just big to begin with and so they don’t show at all.  But not always—-and if they’re able to fool themselves, they were fooling others. 

Let us consider Sarah Palin specifically.  We know that she’s extremely vain and a workout fanatic, the former being a venial sin in my book and the latter being pretty much the only thing I like about her.  But between these two facts, I think we have a pretty good explanation for why even a somewhat smaller woman might not show.  On the latter, I think that a lot of people really don’t think about how much difference having a ton of abdominal muscles can make. We think of hard muscles as being a wall against the outside—-think of the accidental kicks to the stomach the super-muscular soccer players in the World Cup are able to back bounce from—-but they also work perfectly well at holding up the insides.  If Palin was doing a bunch of sit-ups before, it’s possible that this happened.  According to the Royal College of Midwives, strong abdominal muscles can indeed hide a pregnancy: some women “have very tight tummy muscles so the bump is not apparent.”

Which is what I think is going on in the pictures that the theorists whip out of Palin. Sullivan uses this picture, taken a few weeks before Trig’s birth, to “prove” that Palin wasn’t pregnant:

Except, of course, Palin is actually showing a gut.  Frankly, for someone who works out as much as she does, and is as thin and vain as she usually is, being pregnant strikes me as the only reason she’d allow a picture to exist that shows a wrinkle over stomach.  No, it’s not a huge gut, but it is absolutely a gut. 

Litbrit posted this picture of Palin at 8 months:

Between the funny camera angle and the fact that Sarah is sporting the posture of a pregnant woman, I’m going to have to say that this picture looks like that of a pregnant woman who has a skill at dressing in a way to hide it.  It’s almost as if she’s really vain, and would spend a lot of mental energy trying not to look like she’s hugely pregnant.  Some pregnant women see being pregnant as basically a vacation from the relentless pressure to be svelte, but believe me, that’s not always true—-I see plenty of pregnant women at my gym who seem determined not to gain an ounce of weight that isn’t baby.

And I must point out that Palin was never actually a full nine months along—-she gave birth to Trig a month prematurely. 

4) Sarah Palin got on a plane while having contractions and flew all the way to Alaska from Texas.
  I’ve never understood why this is supposed to be proof of anything.  Palin wouldn’t be bragging about this if she was hiding something, I suspect.  Her explanation for why they let her on the plane—-that she didn’t show much, and so they probably didn’t even notice—-makes perfect sense both from a pragmatic point of view, and it’s pretty typical of Sarah Palin to be so egotistical and entitled. 

Litbrit claims it would be impossible to fly during labor, because it’s so painful.  But there’s no reason to think she was in heavy labor during the flight; she didn’t give birth until hours after she got off the plane.  Nor is there any reason whatsoever to think that the labor itself was a horrible ordeal.  How painful labor is varies dramatically from woman to woman, and in some women, the cervix opens up without a lot of struggle.  I’d imagine that’s particularly true on baby number five. 

We know for a fact that Sarah Palin is an impulsive person who is rather disdain of rationality.  It’s not hard to imagine a woman like her immediately boarding a plane so she could give birth at home where she’s comfortable, instead of rationally thinking through the potential consequences.  If you fly a lot like politicians do, you probably stop thinking of the plane as this scary, trapped experience.  Moreover, rural people aren’t unused to the idea of women traveling far during labor to give birth, as that’s something that women who don’t have immediate access to a hospital because they live out in the boondocks have to do.  I’ve definitely heard of people getting in a car and driving 3 hours to get to a hospital while a woman’s in labor.  Sure, the flight from Texas to Alaska is a lot longer than that, but at that point, you can easily see someone deciding that it’s not that much longer. 

If all this bores you, sorry to spend so much time debunking this conspiracy theory, or at least demonstrating that the supposedly hard proof against Palin is weak indeed.  But there’s a real danger when conspiracy theories are spun out without a debunking.  The Palin conspiracy theory seems tailor-made to rob liberals of our moral authority against nutty right wing conspiracy theories.  It allows false equivalence to sneak in—-both sides have their Birthers!  It deprives people of the ability to concoct genuinely interesting analysis grounded in reality.  It’s a waste of time and energy. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:33 AM • (365) Comments

I’m sold. It always struck me as a silly theory, and I’m surprised there are still people flogging this story.

Comment #1: Theron  on  07/05  at  11:43 AM

As galactically stupid as the conservatives have become, it is sobering to consider how close the progressives are behind them. The last thing the political left needs is another moronic conspiracy theory that doesn’t even make sense. Seriously thank you, Amanda, for continually pointing out the counterproductive nature of these conspiracy theories.

The strange thing is that progressives have no need of this kind of gossipy tabloid bullshit. We have perfectly simple, totally effective ways to attack Palin when we need to do so. (Her dangerously idiotic statements about the economy and foreign policy are merely one example of this.) Why Sullivan cares about this kind of petty-ass bullshit is a total mystery to me—though I admit that I don’t get why people read him in the first place.

Comment #2: atheist  on  07/05  at  11:52 AM

I agree. And I’ll add an additional squeeze of wtf-sauce, because it doesn’t matter anyway. Seriously, why would anyone care about this even in the vanishingly unlikely event that it were true? Intriguing gossip maybe, but what difference would it make?

Comment #3: MissPrism  on  07/05  at  11:53 AM

Yeah, I know when my wife went into labour for the first kid, I only knew several hours in because she woke me up at 7AM with “Guess what?”

She’d been having contractions for hours, but wasn’t positive, and they were pretty easy to deal with. She could have concealed them right up until an hour or two before the actual baby coming out part of things. Second one was similar, with us going for a nice walk while she was having contractions because they were minor, and she knew from the first kid that she’d be immobile for the final parts.

And my wife, though slender, concealed her pregnancy from her workplace until after seven months. They had started to suspect something a few days before she made the official announcement, but nobody was sure.

Comment #4: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  07/05  at  11:53 AM

Andrew is really on ... weird, shaky ground here, reaching for this word, “psychotic,” to try to somehow add a new level of pathology beyond what Sarah Palin has already proven herself to be: a creepy, small town huckster. 70% of people already get it. She’ll probably never win an election again in *any* venue. Why are we even still talking about this discredited person?

Oh, and yeah. Good post, Amanda. My only point, which you are clearly conscious of, is that this post says more about Andrew than it does to validate Sarah Palin.

Comment #5: humanadverb  on  07/05  at  11:54 AM

Addendum to my last post: maybe when we have that accidental kid when our daughter is like, 17 or so, we’ll pretend it’s hers. Just to annoy her.

Comment #6: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  07/05  at  12:02 PM

“What difference would it make?” is a completely different discussion than “Did it happen?”  The conspiracy theorists want to have the “does it matter?” discussion, because they have some grounds to argue there.  After all, if it did happen, the Palin’s entire “pro-life” schtick is based on a lie, and since that’s her main value to the wingnut cause, that could be huge.  Personally, I think if it was true, the antis would laud her for taking such strong measures to avoid an abortion, but I can see the conspiracy theorist hope/argument.

“What does it matter?” is a qualitative argument, and by its nature, up to opinion.  “Did it happen?” is a factual debate, easier to win if you take it head on.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  12:05 PM

In the first few weeks after Palin’s running mate status was announced, I thought this theory was silly, but, hey, who knows?  Conservative families who sit at the top of the social ladder in rinkydink little states do a lot of weird shit to maintain their “good name”. 

Then it was announced that Bristol was pregnant, which disproves it in multiple ways (the math part, and also the part where it’s in their interest to cover something like that up).  I figured that was the end of this shit. 

Oh, and re the photo of her in the black outfit posing next to the child - the reason she doesn’t show is that she’s wearing black and standing at an odd angle.  Notice, too, that she’s always wearing those bulky jackets. I guess you have to anyway in Alaska, but it definitely works in that situation.  It’s how several TV actresses have hidden their pregnancies on camera.

Comment #8: The Opoponax  on  07/05  at  12:07 PM

Count me as one of the people (when I first heard about the supposed circumstances of Trig’s birth) as very suspicious of what Sarah Palin claimed what happened.  After listening to Palin speak and having read some interviews and gotten to “know” her better over the years, I am pretty sure I know what happened:

1) I believe she actually gave birth to Trig

2) I believe she lied about the circumstances of Trig’s birth.

Palin is a big fat liar.  She has shown herself to be a liar at almost every opportunity.  She likes to maintain this fiction of herself as a tough person who, by her own will, can hold contractions in for 20 hours+ to give birth.  I believe she had a planned birth at the hospital and that she was not experiencing contractions in Texas.

Comment #9: barbara smith  on  07/05  at  12:10 PM

The other reason why its really really unlikely that Trig is Bristol’s rather than Sarah’s is that Trig has Down’s.  Young chromosomes work better.  For teens, the risk is less than 1 in a 1000.  For someone in her 40s, the risk is 1 in 30ish.  Its a lot more likely absent any other information that Sarah was the mother.

The only reason why I would believe the theory is #4 strikes me a series of bad choices.  Certainly I can believe that Sarah Palin would make such a series of odd and/or bad choices, but I would understand those choices a lot more if the goal was to get home and cover up Bristol’s birth.  Especially given the documented cases of Sarah covering up or interfering with the normal government process.

But as you say, the fact that Bristol’s confirmed pregnancy would have to overlap with Trig’s birth pretty much puts the nail in the head of this theory.

Comment #10: malraux  on  07/05  at  12:19 PM

There is photographic proof of me cuddling a baby.  No one has ever used this to accuse me of being the child’s mother.  Male privilege strikes again.

Comment #11: libdevil  on  07/05  at  12:20 PM

Sarah Palin is the queen of bad choices, I have to point out.  Like, oh, accepting the VP slot and allowing the McCain campaign to announce it before letting them know her daughter was pregnant.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  12:21 PM

Point taken on “does it matter” versus “did it happen.” But the second item is only a question if you concede the first one, and so I think it is worth at least paying lip service to that first point before rendering the entire issue moot on the second—as you so effectively do.

It is no coincidence that this matters to Andrew Sullivan, with his own socially “conservative” hangups. The argument he’s trying to win by proxy here is that there should be no line between private and public questions. He can stamp his feet and insist the media should have been more interested in this story all he wants, but no, sorry Andrew, the TradMed is *more* than sufficiently preoccupied with 8th grade gossip.

Comment #13: humanadverb  on  07/05  at  12:22 PM

I love it when certain guys just don’t get pregnancy on multiple levels.  The birth of Trip puts to rest any conspiracy theories - it is physiologically IMPOSSIBLE for her to have given birth to both.  Palin is thin and works out, but she has also had 5 kids - she may be one of those women (like me) who simply does not look all that pregnant until she is about seven months in.  Only a jerk like Sullivan would think he knows anything about this sort of thing. 

Not only that, it is a high odds shot that a 40-something woman would bear a child with down syndrome, and a not-impossible but not very likely one for a teen.

Comment #14: Ms Kate  on  07/05  at  12:22 PM

#11

Yeah I cuddled both my sister’s babies, on camera, and I hope nobody thinks that I am therefore the real father!

Comment #15: atheist  on  07/05  at  12:23 PM

What would it change? Bristol had a child named Tripp, I think? And they are saying ha ha the abstinence thing is a load of crap because she secretly had Trig? Hasn’t that ship already sailed with Tripp? And if its no one should take a person who tells crazy stories that can’t possibly be real seriously didn’t Sarah Palin cross that threshold long ago and wouldn’t a wacky story about who really gave birth to the child go into the heap with Putin’s rearing head and regulations cause oil spills?

Comment #16: pharmakos  on  07/05  at  12:26 PM

That some or even most women blow up during pregnancy isn’t proof that all do.  One in 600 women who give birth didn’t even know they were pregnant. There’s even a TV show about it! In most cases, it’s a matter of denial, and in some, the women involved are just big to begin with and so they don’t show at all.  But not always—-and if they’re able to fool themselves, they were fooling others. 

The wife of a friend of mine is stick thin, loves to run and do marathons, etc.  She was told that she could never conceive and have kids. 

She started to gain weight and feel lousy, was tested for thyroid, etc.  Finally, somebody tested her for pregnancy and guess what - not only was this stick thin marathoner pregnant, she was SEVEN MONTHS pregnant.  YMMV!

Comment #17: Ms Kate  on  07/05  at  12:27 PM

Personal anecdote - my wife is one of those women who’s cervix opens up without a ‘a lot’ of struggle.  Well, that is if you discount how miserable she said she felt the 3 days before she went into full stage 2 pushing labor.  It wasn’t a contraction miserable - she said she felt like she was getting the flu - and the normal contractions of the 3rd trimester made it even more unpleasant.  Was it any more painful than most women’s experience of stage 1?  I dunno - but she didn’t spend it laboring in the traditional sense.  (No, she labored doing as she always does - including writing and delivering a sermon as usual . . )

There are thousands of stories of women laboring in both senses, especially as they experience their 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on children.  Many are from the early 20th, 19th & 18th centuries before we made labor a tenuous medical condition.

That Palin got on a commercial airliner in early stage 1 labor and then gave birth?  Completely believable.    I’m sure it wasn’t fun, though.

Comment #18: idiosynchronic  on  07/05  at  12:27 PM

I didn’t buy the conspiracy in the first place.

And yes, you are right. I see too many people who would dearly love to make false equivalencies between the left and right. This theory is worth quashing because:

(a) It draws attention away from substantive issues.

(b) The false equivalency thing.

(c) It demonstrates that liberals are on the side of truth, and that they would not try to exploit this for partisan gain.

Comment #19: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood  on  07/05  at  12:35 PM

Yeah I cuddled both my sister’s babies, on camera, and I hope nobody thinks that I am therefore the real father!

A lot of the time on Facebook (more with people from my past who I’m not in close touch with), I’ll see a photo of someone cuddling a baby and think, “Wait, he has kids now? Last I heard he’d just broken up with his girlfriend?”  It usually turns out to be a niece or nephew. 

Also, NEVER put a picture of you cuddling a baby or small child on a dating site.  Unless it really is yours, of course.  Definitely enough to scare away potential partners who don’t feel ready to deal with dating someone with kids.

Comment #20: The Opoponax  on  07/05  at  12:39 PM

#20

Opoponax, don’t worry, I don’t make the photos public or anything. But if someone wanted to dig through my stuff (as Sullivan is apparently digging through Palin’s) they could probably find ‘em.

Comment #21: atheist  on  07/05  at  12:45 PM

Is anyone else bothered that this entire story has *always* been based on men projecting their own sexual expectations onto women? I admit, I look at those two pictures of Palin pregnant and think, “yeah, she’s pregnant,“but it isn’t my job to point and scream, “Preggers!”

This topic is just ... I’m sorry, but it has to be said: this is offensive. No fault on Amanda’s part, because sadly, this *is* a topic that needs to be addressed. But, fuck you, Andrew. Keep it to yourself.

Comment #22: humanadverb  on  07/05  at  12:51 PM

atheist, I’m not trying to say that nobody should be photographed with a baby that isn’t theirs.  Just that, yep, sometimes people see a picture of you and a baby and think it’s yours.  Not unique to Bristol Palin at all. 

Though I do think dudes need to be more careful about the photos they put on dating sites, in general.  People decide whether to go out with you based on them!  It’s OK to be a little self-conscious in your choices of how to represent yourself.

Comment #23: The Opoponax  on  07/05  at  12:58 PM

Litbrit claims it would be impossible to fly during labor, because it’s so painful.

Litbrit is full of shit.  We fly women having contractions out on medevacs regularly.

Comment #24: KeithM  on  07/05  at  12:58 PM

I just don’t understand why Andrew continues to flog this: he speculated about something 2 years ago, and turned out to be wrong. After Bristol’s pregnancy, the rational response from Andrew was to say, “well, I guess I was wrong about that,” and drop it.

Comment #25: Tyro  on  07/05  at  01:05 PM

I made a post about this when it first started dribbling out. Traffic to my blog shot up a huge amount.

I came to the conclusion that, even if it were true that Trig was Bristol’s baby, which I doubted, it really wasn’t appropriate to be blogging about it, as Bristol wasn’t a public figure: Sarah Palin had done much worse - and much sillier - things in her life. If she was covering up for her daughter, that was between her and her daughter.

But I also concluded that it almost certainly wasn’t true, and that the only reason such a big deal was being made of it was media misogyny.

So I posted an apology for making the first post.

We know for a fact that Sarah Palin is an impulsive person who is rather disdain of rationality.  It’s not hard to imagine a woman like her immediately boarding a plane so she could give birth at home where she’s comfortable, instead of rationally thinking through the potential consequences.  If you fly a lot like politicians do, you probably stop thinking of the plane as this scary, trapped experience.  Moreover, rural people aren’t unused to the idea of women traveling far during labor to give birth, as that’s something that women who don’t have immediate access to a hospital because they live out in the boondocks have to do.  I’ve definitely heard of people getting in a car and driving 3 hours to get to a hospital while a woman’s in labor.  Sure, the flight from Texas to Alaska is a lot longer than that, but at that point, you can easily see someone deciding that it’s not that much longer. 

This! Makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Comment #26: Jesurgislac  on  07/05  at  01:16 PM

I’ve looked at these accusations pretty coolly. On the one hand, I wouldn’t put much past Palin’s desire to spin to her base, but on the other hand, there was more than a little teen-slut-pantysniffing to the story, which made me less likely to jump on board.

Palin threw Bristol under the bus when she announced her daughter’s pregnancy. She basically let the whole world know that her daughter was riding the slut bus in the name of political expediency. I’m not sure what it says about the overall conspiracy, but with regards to Palin’s in-flight labor shenanigans, I think that proves little more than she was hoping the baby wouldn’t survive delivery, and that’s why she did something so bone-headed and reckless as to get on a plane “leaking amniotic fluid” (as she bragged) for 8-hours when she knew that the pregnancy was high-risk.

I find that there is no reason to make this shit up in order to “protect” her daughter when there is not a lot of damage control to be gained from it. Palin may not be the brightest bulb in the marquee, but she’s pretty politically calculating and I don’t see the circumstances surrounding Trig that she’s talked about being particularly helpful to her image overall.

Plus, Levi Johnston (?) said flat-out in an interview that Trig was Sarah’s baby, and he’s not exactly working to make Sarah’s life easy.

Comment #27: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/05  at  01:16 PM

Put me down in the “I’m surprised anyone is still obsessing over this” category.

I’d always just made an uninterested assumption that the story was probably true b/c of a) the “not showing”, b) the crazy plane flight from TX-AK story, c) it flew in the face of Palin’s abstinence-only posture, but most damning of all, d) historically speaking, w/o evidence to the contrary you just have to assume that crazy shit like this is true when it comes to conservatives, and Palin, of course, is among the craziest of the crazies. Looking at the case you’ve presented, I can now categorically state: “Eh… probably not true.”

Comment #28: Geocrackr  on  07/05  at  01:17 PM

Yeah, some coworkers who wore lots of structured suits have gotten to month seven without even a hint of anything besides, you know, maybe a surfeit of christmas cookies. I was willing to believe this really silly theory until I saw how they treated actual Bristol’s actual pregnancy, which was with high-fiving and self-congratulation.

Comment #29: purpleshoes  on  07/05  at  01:19 PM

Geocrackr - it goes FAR beyond “probably not true”.  More like “physiologically impossible”.  Period.  End of story.

Comment #30: The Opoponax  on  07/05  at  01:30 PM

Y’all are frontin’. It was TODD who gave birth to Trig.

Comment #31: felagund  on  07/05  at  01:34 PM

This is a bit tautological, but the reason that people don’t let this go is that they are conspiracy theorists, a breed known never to let anything go.

Comment #32: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  01:36 PM

After Bristol’s pregnancy, the rational response from Andrew was to say, “well, I guess I was wrong about that,” and drop it.

Why are we mentionning rational responses? I know Sullivan’s gay, but he’s still a conservative, isn’t he? (Or a libertarian… same difference.)

Comment #33: BlackBloc  on  07/05  at  01:42 PM

Sullivan’s a creep who probably needs to move on—especially with Bristol’s pregnancy pretty much killing his old theory that Bristol is Trig’s bio-mother—but the claim that Sarah Palin doesn’t show when she’s far along in a pregnancy isn’t true

Count me among the minority of liberals/progressives who find the heroic pregnancy-and-birth story hard to believe.  Palin could easily have released some low-key, non-privacy-invading, simple evidence that she gave birth to Trig and she never did.  And the MSM never checked out her wild-sounding yarn.

Comment #34: Unree  on  07/05  at  01:46 PM

Thank you for posting this.  Sometimes what one person thinks is obvious needs to be presented in a clear and direct manner for it to sink in.  We can lament conspiracy all day long, but the best thing to do to combat it is what you have done here.  Nutters or ideologues won’t be convinced, of course, but rational people who may not be in possession of all the facts and relevant arguments will be.  I admit this seemed plausible given Palin’s long history as a professional bullshit artist.  But as I learned in my adventures in conspiracy land, highlighting plausibility over fact is an old conspiracy trick.  Is it possible? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it happened.

Comment #35: Zagrobelny  on  07/05  at  01:49 PM

Sullivan is way off about who birthed whom. He seems very reluctant to admit it.

The #4 theory is of new use to him because he seems to honestly believe Palin will be the GOP nominee in 2012, and he believes the story she told about leaking amniotic fluid all the way across America, on two flights, and bypassing three major hospitals doesn’t add up.

And he is likely right that part or all of that fantastic story is bunk. It is well within Palin’s nature to embellish a story like that in order to polish her mommy-warrior credentials. Not only does she get major props from the anti-choice movement, she can also cover herself in added glory for enduring such a (self-inflicted, if true) hardship in a stoic, composed manner. It feeds directly into her heroic fantasies of competence. Sullivan is being baited by the fact Palin cannot reliably tell the truth about anything, so the details of her amazing journey have changed over the years, feeding his paranoia.

Does it matter if she lied about the circumstances of the birth? In a sense, yes, it does. She is a public person who has made central use of that birth and the baby to further her political and commercial careers. That story is integral to her identity as a female conservative warrior, fighting the good fight against evil liberalism, permissiveness, a culture that hates life, etc., etc. If it is all a bullshit lie, it is further proof of her willingness to lie about literally anything in order to gain advantage, which, if she is going to be a major party nominee for president, actually does matter.

The minefield here is obvious. Absent hard proof she lied about the flights home and the subsequent birth, attacking her over it makes the attackers look like lunatics, which will shore up the very cred she has used these stories to build.

Comment #36: Fallsroad  on  07/05  at  02:13 PM

I saw a classic example of this yesterday via http://www.twisst.nl - a chap had taped what looked very like a pass of the International Space Station, and posted it to Youtube calling it a UFO. So far, that’s fairly understandable - some ISS passes are brighter than the brightest stars in the sky, and the moving light is fast and silent and slightly eerie.

But the when someone politely asked for the time and direction of his shot to check whether the ISS was there at that time, he got angry, closed comments and said that the only things it could POSSIBLY be were a. aliens or b. a mysterious top secret military drone of some kind. It’s not the entertaining of a wacky theory that makes a conspiracist - wacky stuff is sometimes true! - it’s the flat refusal to let go of it in the face of evidence.

Comment #37: MissPrism  on  07/05  at  02:17 PM

Palin is actually showing a gut.  Frankly, for someone who works out as much as she does, and is as thin and vain as she usually is, being pregnant strikes me as the only reason she’d allow a picture to exist that shows a wrinkle over stomach.  No, it’s not a huge gut, but it is absolutely a gut.

God, yes.  And she’s leaning forward, which will bring the upper part of the torso forward so the stomach doesn’t seem quite so projecting.  And yet still you see it projecting. 

I was born when my sisters were 10 and 14.  I was quite the living babydoll for them.

And I would be wary of putting a picture of myself with children on a dating site, whether I had them or not, because, child predator.  Don’t hide that you have kids, of course, but I’d be concerned that in image could start the imagination machine going.  Many predators are fixated on certain ages and looks.  I’m not saying don’t share a picture once the connection is made; just not to put it up where it might provide a trigger to someone you don’t want to trigger.

Comment #38: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  02:20 PM

I agree. And I’ll add an additional squeeze of wtf-sauce, because it doesn’t matter anyway. ... Intriguing gossip maybe, but what difference would it make?
Comment #3: MissPrism on 07/05 at 10:53 AM

Why is it important?  What difference does it make? Leaving out the “who’s kid is it?” garbage, it is important because that flight home highlights Palin’s entitlement attitude, reckeless disregard for others and hypocrisy.

Entitlement: At the least, a woman in labor is tons more likely to have a medical emergency which causes a plane to divert /emergency land causing tons of inconvenience at best, real loss to other passengers (what if one of them is trying to reach their own sick child/parent/spouse?) 

Reckless disregard: Palin knew she wasn’t having a normal pregnancy or child.  Downs sufferers are much more likely to have physical anomalies as well, often life threatening if not immediately given good neonate care.  Plus, this was a preemie with less developed lungs, etc.

Hypocrisy: Most airlines won’t let someone fly if they are beyond 32 weeks preggers.  (We lost the ability to be on sight managing a parent’s serious illness care because of a pregnancy.) So Palin broke rules - but wants everyone else to play by the rules.  For all her “made a decision to have the baby” bs, I think she was still pretty ambivalent about having a DS son and that having a stillborn child would have relived her of much and given her “bereaved mom” status as well.  Whether this was conscious or subconscious, we’ll never know.  But her anti-choice attitude makes her a hypocrite, denying this ambivalence about pregnancy to other women.

Comment #39: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  02:25 PM

To malruax @#10 OK, but as your 1 in 1,000 shows, less chance is not no chance.  Had close hs friend who gave birth to DS child at age 19.  Have another friend whose niece is ds.  Her mom was in her early 20’s for the birth.

Comment #40: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  02:30 PM

I commend Amanda for being a liberal blogger who isn’t afraid to call out her fellow lefties when they do or say stupid shit (e.g. about childhood vaccinations). But in this case she has conflated a couple of things that make Sullivan look like he’s a loony conspiracy theorist and that’s not really the case, so I’ll stick out my neck here and come to his defense on this one. Sullivan dismissed early on the crazier version of this story, which was that Trig is really Bristol’s secret child and that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover it up. That was just patently untrue and even though he toyed with it briefly, Sullivan now acknowledges that that angle was wrong. What he is pursuing, on the other hand, is the fact that Palin repeatedly, in print and in other media, told this really, really bizarre story about going into labor in Texas, and then flying home on the equivalent of a transatlantic flight (keep in mind this was a high risk pregnancy) to give birth, and then keeping all the details secret, even as she regularly uses Trig as a public prop for her pro-choice political persona (and that’s the kicker). If she is telling the truth, she is a really reckless person who has no business taking care of kids, much less anything in the public trust. If (as Sullivan suspects, and just as barbara smith observed in #9 upthread) Palin is just repeatedly making shit up to convince herself and her followers of how cool she is, then she is a fantasist who can’t be trusted with anything, either. I read Sullivan’s blog pretty regularly and this story, as far as he is concerned, is really more about the MSM and their complete lack of cojones when covering someone he is convinced will be the GOP presidential frontrunner in 2012.

Now Palin could just be a flash in the pan and will go away once all this Tea Party silliness dies down and none of this will matter and Sullivan will have wasted a lot of his time. But I, like Andrew, suspect that she really does have a shot at the GOP nomination and we can’t have the press preemptively agreeing to cover a major political candidate with one hand tied behind its back. Which it has essentially done.

Comment #41: jonas  on  07/05  at  02:31 PM

The cuddling bit is just bizarre (not that the rest of it isn’t). My sister and I cuddled our much-younger brother all the time – and changed his diapers, fed him, etc. No one thought he was actually one of ours. People are physically affectionate with their siblings a huge amount of the time, especially when their siblings are babies.

Comment #42: Lauren O  on  07/05  at  02:33 PM

You know, the whole thing did sound vaguely plausible to me, when it first started making the rounds, right up to the point where the announcement that Bristol was pregnant was made. Then, hey, math! I totally believe Sarah Palin is exactly enough of a selfish, reckless asshole to make that flight while in the early stages of labor of a high-risk pregnancy, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if she is, perhaps, using a bit of dramatic license to buff up the shine on her Mama Bear image.

Comment #43: Bella  on  07/05  at  02:36 PM

BUt, Ms Kate - again, I think her actions on at the flight home are enough to hang her on for being a crappy mom- so no, I’m not defending Sullivan. But, the pictures of a preggers Palin with either the first or second kid show a woman who REALLY shows - she is big and wide.  SO any consistency arg. is blown there. 

There is also the video of a preggers with Tripp Plain where she is wearing heeled boots (stupid for a pregnant woman) on a rainy street and scurrying along with a reporter. Palin is definitely out of breath - which shouldn’t be the case for an in shape, not preggers runner.

Comment #44: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  02:37 PM

Unree, your suggestion that every pregnancy is identical—-or that a woman at 7 months (which is Palin in the second picture) looks the same as a woman at 9 months (her in the first)—-is simply incorrect.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  02:38 PM

I’m not in the least surprised that the man who made his career scolding the rest of the gay community has turned into a nutty panty-sniffer when it comes to the Palins.

Comment #46: CBrachyrhynchos  on  07/05  at  02:40 PM

Keithm - you do get that there is a BIG, HUGE, APPLES AND ORANGES difference between the patient’s physical room and the conditions on a medevac and the sardine can like confines and preparedness of a commercial flight?

Comment #47: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  02:41 PM

Knute, banned for being too stupid to read the post, as well as general evilness.

Comment #48: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  02:43 PM

Yes, yes… but I think we’re missing the point here:  WHERE IS THE LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE??!!!1!eleven!

Comment #49: jamie d  on  07/05  at  02:43 PM

jonas, dodginess and “just asking questions” when you’re caught bullshitting are clear-cut strategies of conspiracy theorists.  And that’s what he’s reduced to.  Here’s some useful reading.  I suggest that you not defend conspiracy theorists who can’t drop it, even when they’ve been shown a way out.

Comment #50: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  02:45 PM

It’s not the entertaining of a wacky theory that makes a conspiracist - wacky stuff is sometimes true! - it’s the flat refusal to let go of it in the face of evidence.

Amen to that.

Comment #51: Ranylt  on  07/05  at  02:45 PM

There is also the video of a preggers with Tripp Plain where she is wearing heeled boots (stupid for a pregnant woman)

Yeah, it sure is stupid to dress in a way that some dipshit on a blog might not approve of.

Comment #52: sophonisba  on  07/05  at  02:48 PM

#45 should be with Twig, uh sorry Trig.

Comment #53: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  02:49 PM

Well Sophonisba, there are like a huge host of medical reasons (and physics) to NOT wear heels while pregnant.  ANd most med professionals agree about it. 

1. Tendons stretch which means you have less stability and it is easier to strain/sprain soemthing, like an ankle.

2. It also increases back pressure and pain.  Can exacerbate or even cause sciatica.

3. Throws off center of gravity.

4. She isn’t wearing them for just a quick photo op, but to walk rapidly on a slippery, wet street. 

Sorry, all the above scream reckless, more concerned with image than being a REAL care-about-the- kid mom., which after all Palin as an antichoicer is supposed to be.

Comment #54: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  02:58 PM

For all her “made a decision to have the baby” bs, I think she was still pretty ambivalent about having a DS son and that having a stillborn child would have relived her of much and given her “bereaved mom” status as well.  Whether this was conscious or subconscious, we’ll never know. 
Comment #39: phylosopher on 07/05 at 01:25 PM

Or hey, maybe she wasn’t ambivalent, just believed she was perfect and her decisions were perfect and her child would be fine because she’s special and God’s lookin’ after her. 

She presents as deluded self-special more than anything else to me.

There is also the video of a preggers with Tripp Plain where she is wearing heeled boots (stupid for a pregnant woman) on a rainy street and scurrying along with a reporter.
Comment #44: phylosopher on 07/05 at 01:37 PM

Heaven forfend that a pregnant woman wear heeled boots and run, instead of, what?  Staying at home, er, barefoot? 

It’s interesting that the person doing the most bad-mommy-shaming here is a man.  Oh, wait, no.  Not interesting.  Why would you think this would get a pass on a post specifically addressing baseless Palin-slamming that seems to be inadequately questioned by the left?

Comment #55: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  03:01 PM

Or we have phyl on hand to provide an example of JAQ-ing off.  He not saying that Palin faked her pregnancy.  He’s just asking questions!  Except of course in such a way to make it clear that he thinks Palin faked her pregnancy.

I run about 5 miles every single day, and I lift weights.  But occasionally, if I jog a little, I get a teeny bit out of breath.  Good to know this means phyl thinks I’m lying.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  03:05 PM

Or at least we should ask very serious questions about my moral fiber.  Would someone who runs so much own and wear high heels?! You can’t jog in high heels, thus you can’t wear them at times when you’re not jogging, because you’re a jogger!  It’s a lot harder for a jogger to wear high heels when not out jogging than it is for a teenager that’s 8 months pregnant to get pregnant while pregnant.

Comment #57: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  03:07 PM

I’m not sure what it says about the overall conspiracy, but with regards to Palin’s in-flight labor shenanigans, I think that proves little more than she was hoping the baby wouldn’t survive delivery, and that’s why she did something so bone-headed and reckless as to get on a plane “leaking amniotic fluid” (as she bragged) for 8-hours when she knew that the pregnancy was high-risk.

It’s the good old-fashioned “Irish abortion”—you take chances with what you know is a high-risk pregnancy because you’re hoping to have a respectable miscarriage (aka “let God decide”) rather than consciously choose a dirty, filthy abortion.

I could go either way on that aspect, frankly.  Palin does strike me as the kind of person who’s arrogant enough to decide that she knows best because she’s already had four kids so she would discount any possible danger to herself and/or the baby.  The story does say something about her character, but it ain’t some grand conspiracy to cover up the fact she was never pregnant.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  03:08 PM

Another Pandagon comment thread, another phylosopher boot-in-mouth moment.

Comment #59: BlackBloc  on  07/05  at  03:12 PM

Opoponax @ 8:
Just for the record, you do not always need to wear bulky jackets in Alaska.  In the first place, it does get warm, if not what most of us would call hot, and people who live there adjust to the weather so that they are comforatble in shorts when it is in the 60s and shirtsleaves in the upper40s to 50s.  Hell, after a few weeks, visitors adjust to it as well (especially if you are from the northern parts of the lower 48).  People in New England act the same way in March and April when a day with a high of 70 seems just sweltering.

Comment #60: helen w. h.  on  07/05  at  03:12 PM

Oldfeminist and AManda - I’m suggesting the video offers proof that Palin was pregnant.  If she wasn’t, then as a the avid runner she is supposed to be, she wouldn’t have been that out of breath from WALKING, you know?

The mid 80’s photo is only a refutation of the line of argument that goes - different women carry children differently and Palin must be one of those (women who just don’t show.)  Can the argument be made that the same woman can carry differently in different pregnancies - which would apply here? I don’t know.  That wasn’t the case in our household, though supposedly there the sex of the child causes a difference in the way the pregnancy is carried - though some claim this is a myth and it has more to do with the separation of some muscle fascia.

Comment #61: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  03:18 PM

The fact that Palin never disclosed her medical records but patently lied and said she did makes me think she has some skeletons in that closet, perhaps to do with Trig, perhaps not.

I was one of those didn’t-know-she-was-pregnant-until-almost-seven-months people. I had gained weight, but not a lot. Now I’m pregnant with number #2, and at three months, I look like I did at seven months with #1. Doc says that once your abdominal muscles have been all stretched out from one pregnancy, they’ll stretch right back out again. And yes, I’m active and in shape. I would be willing to bet she had a “mommy makeover” or tummy tuck, thinking she was done having kids, and doesn’t want that known. As Amanda noted above, she is quite vain, and probably buys into the “effortless perfection” beauty myth.

It’s completely her prerogative to disclose her medical history or not (though from what I understand, all Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates do it). But then why lie? I don’t buy the Trig-is-really-Bristol’s conspiracy, but I *do* think she’s covering something up.

Comment #62: baddesignhurts  on  07/05  at  03:19 PM

Blackbloc - it seems more like screen in eye and a lack of logic on the part of readers.  Again, wearing heels is a choice.  Wearing heels while pregnant for someone who proclaims herself a “momma grizzly” protector of innocent babes is either hypocritical or stupid.  But either one rests on the assumption that Palin was indeed pregnant.

Comment #63: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  03:22 PM

Phylosopher @61:
I followed that you were saying she should not have been out of breath from walking unless something else was up, like she was pregnant.
Yes, women do not always carry a pregnancy the same way.  With my first, I carried high and got huge (partly because I was under weight at the start, but also just because).  With my second, I carried low and didn’t show much until well into the 4th or 5th month.
I’ve known women who had several very similar pregnancies and ones who had a few with no two much alike.

Comment #64: helen w. h.  on  07/05  at  03:23 PM

Oldfeminist and AManda - I’m suggesting the video offers proof that Palin was pregnant.  If she wasn’t, then as a the avid runner she is supposed to be, she wouldn’t have been that out of breath from WALKING, you know?

I’m not saying you are claiming she wasn’t pregnant. 

I said explicitly that you’re bad-mommy-shaming.

Women are wrong no matter what they do even when they’re not pregnant.  I can only imagine the hell of having everything about my decisions heavily scrutinized and questioned by strangers because I’m pregnant. 

You’re seriously unaware of this?  More Feminism 101 for you:
http://jessicavalenti.com/?p=580
http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/pregnancy-as-public-property/
http://www.spacefem.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40333

Comment #65: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  03:32 PM

4) Sarah Palin got on a plane while having contractions and flew all the way to Alaska from Texas. I’ve never understood why this is supposed to be proof of anything. 

I think it’s because people would rather believe she’d be lying than that such a vociferous pro-lifer would be so irresponsible with the life of her unborn child. Personally, i think the only conspiracy was that there was no sudden labor, she flew home and then had labor induced for whatever reason. Not at all uncommon for an older woman with a high risk pregnancy. She then concocted the “I went into labor then hopped on a plane back home as soon as I could so my baby would be an ALASKAN, by God!” to appeal to her base. Not at all uncommon for a narcissist. On the other hand, it would also be possible for said narcissist to take that plane trip. Maybe I’ve been giving her too much credit.

Opoponax: Then it was announced that Bristol was pregnant, which disproves it in multiple ways (the math part, and also the part where it’s in their interest to cover something like that up).

Not necessarily. She _could_ have gotten pregnant again right after giving birth to Trig, and Tripp _might_ have been born prematurely, and also been unusually large for a preemie. Of such slim possibilities are conspiracy theories made. It’s one of those interesting little quirks of psychology: the less likely something is to happen, the more fervently people who believe it did happen cling to it.

Mighty Ponygirl: Palin threw Bristol under the bus when she announced her daughter’s pregnancy. She basically let the whole world know that her daughter was riding the slut bus in the name of political expediency.

I don’t think that’s really fair. The news would have come out anyway, and I think Palin was at least partially motivated by trying to mitigate the media scrutiny her daughter would have had to face. If she announced it, she had at least some control over the medias presentation, while if it was just hushed up, there would have been no control once the truth started leaking. Of course she also spun it in a way that would score her political points, but that’s to be expected.

Comment #66: Mike Crichton  on  07/05  at  03:35 PM

The main bit of fishyness that has kept Sully all bothered over this is the Palin camp’s evasiveness about Trig’s birth.  Attempts to get straight, clear, and definitive responses to basic questions on the subject were met from day one with whining and attacks on the questioner.  IOW, she acted exactly the way she would if she had something to hide. 

IMO, that’s easy to explain—it’s just how the Palin camp works.  They could have given some definitive answers, but it would deprive them of so many opportunities to act all butthurt and to whine about the media.  Since the “covering for Bristol” theory was so easily disproven, it was easy to spin any queries about Trig’s birth into crazy attacks.

Palin was not just having contractions—she was also leaking amniotic fluid in Texas, at least according to the earlier accounts. (She left out that detail in her recount in Going Rogue.) At the very least that warrants getting checked out by somebody before you get on an all-day plane ride. It was wildly irresponsible to have taken the trip in the first place that late into a high-risk pregnancy.

Like I said at the time, it would have been a far more charitable explanation if she had been covering for Bristol.

Comment #67: The J Train  on  07/05  at  03:37 PM

Sorry oldfeminist, but Palin is the one who has made her pregnancy public property.  Just like setting up her daughter as the Candies abstinence shill means Bristol is no longer off limits on the “candidates’ kids verboten” rule.  So, unless you were running for office and holding up your pregnancy as a proof of your consistency with the party platform, no scrutiny.

Either a) that (flying in labor) story she told wasn’t true, as someone upthread mentioned, and she made it up to get some valor/bravery points, in which case, she’s a fantasist liar

or b) it really happened and is revelatory of her reckless and uncaring nature.  IN both cases, her pregnancy is fair game by her choosing.

She’s now using the pregnancy and birth of Trig as one of her anti-choice bonafides, so, again, her
pregnancy and her performative contradictions of her rhetoric during that pregnancy are, again, fair game. 

For the record, I don’t comment vis-a-vis on any woman’s pregnancy and think that pregnant women have the absolute right to deck anyone touching their bellies without permission.  Shit, I ask before I pet a stranger’s dog, too.  And think that no one should give any type of candy/food to anyone’s kids without express parental permission.  No, not comparing women to dogs, just attempting to show that I recognize the boundaries of privacy, perhaps more than even some folks here do.

Comment #68: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  03:47 PM

Sullivan is a conservative Catholic with an intense hatred for women. I mean, he’s pathologically antagonistic to the very idea of a Vagina-American, so of course he is fixated on a conspiracy theory against Sarah Palin essentially trying to attack her femininity.

And it would be as inane of progressives to believe in his obvious rancid bullshit conspiracy theory as it would be of an progressive to read Andrew Sullivan.

Seriously, is it our open-arm policy to those who defect from the side of batshit insane? Andrew Sullivan regularly argues against any gay rights issue he doesn’t feel will personally affect him. He is openly misogynistic and not just in a “his catholic upbringing means he doesn’t support abortions” sort of way. And he championed for years (and still believes in) “The Bell Curve”, the incredibly debunked and nakedly white supremacist bible. Not to mention the whole “Fifth Column” bullshit about liberals during the Iraq War.

He regularly dips into an insane conspiracy theory or some deeply offensive twaddle or some psychotic right-wing foray on a regular basis and is about as “reformed” as Jeffrey Dahmer.

I have no idea why any progressive would read him on a regular basis unless they were looking to become incredibly pissed and/or less informed.

One or two subjects of clarity do not a progressive make.

Comment #69: Cerberus  on  07/05  at  03:50 PM

I’m sure he’s her kid, but agree with Sullivan that the MSM’s failure to call this idiot out on her lies is the main issue.  It should’ve started way back when she was first tapped for VP - with everyone tearing apart her ridiculous “She-Ra” labor story.  No way is it totally true.  But they’ve let her go this long without being fact checked, so why start now?  I dearly hope she doesn’t get the nomination.  What an embarassment for us all…

Comment #70: gahblah  on  07/05  at  03:53 PM

I think that the most ridiculous thing about this conspiracy theory is Bristol had her own baby.  Why would Palin go through so much trouble to hide one but then made a huge public deal about a second pregnancy (that would have had to start immediately after Trig was born)?  The whole thing is just ridiculous.

Comment #71: bananacat  on  07/05  at  04:02 PM

oh amanda, you silly goose! that’s what “they” want you to think. you see, alaska and the deep southeast (and some parts of CA & AZ) share something in common: kidnappings by aliens!

clearly, bristol was “taken” to the mother ship, and trig was implanted into her womb, right next to her other baby. this explains the seeming impossibility of her getting pregnant a second time, while already with child.

it’s all so clear, if only you connect the dots!

Comment #72: cpinva  on  07/05  at  04:15 PM

OMG now that I am watching the video I see she is DRINKING COFFEE!!!!!  <faints>

I’ve uploaded a still from the video.

She is not wearing high heels.  She’s wearing what are called “kitten heels” or “jet heels”—small but pointy, further under the foot than spikes, which are typically straight down from the back of the heel and are more unstable both because of their further-back position and the extra height.

I enabled the ruler on Photoshop and then did another round of screencap and cut and paste, then moved the ruler so a unit mark is right at the top of the red line which I used to estimate her height.  I was very conservative on this, taking a little off the top of her head because of hair height, and stopping right where the heel could conceivably be, and ignoring the fact that she is leaning forward, instead assuming the height is all vertical.  In the image I got, this is 3-7/32” = 3.21875”. 

I put in a yellow line to represent the heel.  In this case I measured generously, at the very back, though it actually slants forward—the middle of her heel is actually a little lower than this.  The heel measures 3/32” = 0.09375” in the image. 

Her height is widely reported as 5 foot 5 inches (=65”).  So 3.21875” per 65” gives us a ratio of .04952 picture inches to real inches.

0.09375” divided by our ratio .04952?  1.89”. 

So it’s a maximum of a two-inch heel.  More likely 1.5 inches.  On an athlete.  Who habitually wears 4 inch heels when she’s not running.
(e.g the “Naughty Monkey” shoes she sparked interest in:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1055872/Shoe-fans-wild-Sarah-Palins-campaign-trail-peep-toe-heels.html
http://www.endless.com/Naughty-Monkey-Womens-Double-Dare/dp/B0018AMB1W/180-5440750-4675219?ie=UTF8&suppressRedirect=1)

And it’s a boot, which means she’s not going to just slip off it sideways unless it’s a crappy boot, which you KNOW she’s not likely to wear, because she’s vain, but damned if she’s going to bust an ankle and not be able to exercise because of it.

Comment #73: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  04:28 PM

Okay, phyl, you aren’t JAQ-ing off.  I have no idea what you’re stabbing at.

Comment #74: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  04:38 PM

<blockqutoe>Sorry oldfeminist, but Palin is the one who has made her pregnancy public property. </blockquote>
So you think it’s wrong for women to wear 1.5 inch heels when pregnant, it’s just politeness that keeps you from telling every pregnant woman what she’s doing wrong?

You’re still not getting it.  I’m not arguing for “everyone has a right to her own facts.”

Nor am I saying that it’s okay for her to board a plane while leaking amniotic fluid. 

What I am saying is that you’re hyperventilating over something really pretty minor in the course of her pregnancy, under the guise that, if she brought it up, you can harp endlessly about it. 

And that smacks not of treating a hypocrite to her own sauce, but policing all women’s pregnancies, overtly or covertly.

Comment #75: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  04:38 PM

The fact that Palin never disclosed her medical records but patently lied and said she did makes me think she has some skeletons in that closet, perhaps to do with Trig, perhaps not.

Ask Barack Obama how well it works to silence conspiracy theorists to actually cough up the birth certificate.  (Hint: Not in the slightest.)

Comment #76: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  04:42 PM

This is an old, old pattern. The more convincingly you debunk a conspiracy theory, the more determined the conspiracy theorist is to believe it.

I think these people get a thrill by pretending to have secret insider knowledge that no one else can comprehend. It’s a weird psychological trope. They feel special for believing and “proving” things that are obviously bullshit.

Comment #77: Ashley Herzog  on  07/05  at  04:43 PM

phyl has made it clear that his life’s mission is to shame women for every real and imagined slight against perfection and health, at least of others. Why are you on the internet, anyway?  Surely you have a 4-5 hour dinner to cook, starting by grinding your own flour.

Comment #78: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  04:49 PM

Another thing about Alaska: plane travel is SO common there, that, as Amanda pointed out, it’s no big deal.  Sometimes it’s the ONLY way to get somewhere.

So, in addition to Amanda’s point about politicians being (overly) comfortable w/air travel, as an Alaskin Palin has a super dose of that attitude.

And, she’s an idiot.

Comment #79: Eric_RoM  on  07/05  at  04:54 PM

Oldfem - I rewatched the video.  It’s not rainy, it’s icy.  And kitten heels come in a variety of heights - perhaps like the suede Anne Klein that is 2 1/2”  which looks like it could be those (well if I mean if you’re going to spend all that time measuring, ...)  Suede is a soft leather, so yes, one can still twist an ankle easily. 

I think pregnant women can wear whatever the heck they want or don’t want.  But pregnant women who want to tell other pregnant women how they should feel about kids and being pregnant (or even unpregnant women how they should feel about getting pregnant and their own bodies)  are fair game for pointing it out when their performance contradicts their rhetoric.  Palin at this point in time knows she is carrying a high risk pregnancy.  While I’m certainly not saying she needs to stay home barefoot and in the kitchen, I’m saying this is an instance of vanity clearly overriding better judgment or at least some common sense caution, while her rhetoric in retrospect is that she is fiercely protective of her children. 

As for the coffee… just glanced at the video quickly, and I’m not sure she actually drinks it - I think she’s a diet soda caffeine delivery system preferer.  The whole video comes off as awkward though - she’s carrying the cup of hot java on an advertised “hike.”  While shadowing right behind her is an aide with a huge open umbrella.  Very bad camera work. 

So no, it smacks of little else than your obsession with an INternet avatar and twisting statements so you can be “outraged.”

Comment #80: phylosopher  on  07/05  at  05:11 PM

I agree with everything you wrote. As per traveling with broken waters, I don’t see it as particularly dangerous. Selfish maybe, but not dangerous: if there’s a problem she starts screaming and gets an emergency landing. And with four kids and a job in Alaska I wouldn’t want to be stuck with a newborn in Texas, so I can understand her choice (NB not saying I would have done the same). BTW, women may well have broken waters and feel no pain whatsoever. For 12+ hours.
As for the “risk delivery”, this label is a first order estimate, but any woman who has precise info about her own pregnancy and fetus can do much better. At the end of my twin pregnancy I got a bunch of statistics from medline and did my own bayesian analysis, which put me out of the highrisk category for delivery; Palin might have followed her instinct (or know more of Bayes’ theorem than I would expect) to get a similar result.

Comment #81: damigiana  on  07/05  at  05:19 PM

***GENUINE DEERSTALKER CAPS AND MEERSCHAUM PIPES@@!!** ONLY $25!! 19THCENTURYDETECTIVEGEAR.BIZ!!

Comment #82: norbizness  on  07/05  at  05:21 PM

Honestly, Andrew Sullivan just shouldn’t comment on female politicians, he doesn’t seem to be able to hold a moderate opinion about them.

Comment #83: AndersH  on  07/05  at  05:34 PM

I see phylosopher has once again managed to get himself martyred by unfeeling lefties when he was just saying is all.  How does that keep happening over and over again, anyway?  Such a mystery.

Comment #84: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  05:40 PM

When my ex had her first child, the water broke about a day before labor began.  She could have flown across the US, gone across Europe and Asia, and gave birth in Hawaii in that time.  The birth center said don’t worry, as they wouldn’t have to medically induce unless things don’t start.  We tried black kohosh tea and sex to get things going, and that and time—and her hard work, of course—did the job and our son was born the next day.  Palin’s story isn’t impossible or even improbable.

She does and doesn’t show.  That’s not evidence, especially from those photos.  A similar thing is her propensity to tell less than the full truth.  Not direct evidence, either.  Really, the best evidence is the evidence that is none of our business: the boy’s medical records.  No matter how much bullshit his mother spews, we still don’t really have a right to see that.

The time is long past for Palin to put the rumors to rest via a document dump or an appearance on Montel where she accuses Todd of being the father.  She gains much more from this story than she loses, plus it coincides nicely with her martyrdom as a Republican Woman of Great Value and Courage speech (available now for $75,000.00 plus bennies.)  Palin would be politically stupid to let these questions be answered at this point, just as Obama benefits from the racist Birther issue and thus has little reason to put an end to the flailing of his opponents.

There are plenty of reasons to believe she’s an unfit candidate for office, but her son—even if he’s the spawn of six goats and the Whore of Babylon herself—is about the least of them.

Comment #85: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  05:47 PM

damigiana—Except that as a child with Down’s, Trig was a high-risk pregnancy. 8 hours inflight with a healthy baby is stupid enough. If the story is true and she’s not just making up bullshit to fit her damn moose-hunter narrative, then 8 hours inflight with a High Risk Pregnancy is fucking irresponsible and dangerous.

Comment #86: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/05  at  05:48 PM

“Fucking irresponsible and dangerous” is nothing compared to what happens in an abortion factory.

/forced-birther troll

Face it: Sarah gets a pass on any and everything.  Trig could be left overnight in her backyard and eaten by wolves and bears, and it would be blamed on anti-gun policies of the Democrats.

Comment #87: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  06:08 PM

Labor is a chancy thing. I walked around “in labor” for two months during three different pregnancies, if you want to be technical about it.

I choose to believe she was having Braxton-Hicks contractions in Texas, and the “Amniotic Fluid leak” was two or three drops of spotting. Those happen. She may have even lost her mucus plug, thus knowing it was time to go.

Comment #88: Angelia Sparrow  on  07/05  at  06:19 PM

I was unaware that concern trolls have decided that pregnant women, along with having their diets strictly monitored and being treated like public property, now can’t wear heels.  Anything that smacks too hard of seeming like an adult human being is forbidden!

Comment #89: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:19 PM

I disagree.  The story stinks to high heaven.  A woman in a high-risk pregnancy goes into labor and then boards a plane and no one notices?  Stop, please.

I also think that it’s important to keep in mind that something pretty momentous happened in politics.  The senior campaign strategist for a Presidential nominee, went on record, stating that his VP nominee is a pathological liar.  He stated that she instructed him to tell the press that her husband was never a member of the Alaskan separatist party, which he was, and for years.  The senior campaign stategist for a Presidential nominee, a liar by profession, was shocked at her pathology.  That’s how outrageous her lies were.

She’s pathological.  She’s something few have direct experience with.  Every word out of her mouth, is a lie.

She’s pathological.

There is no way her story is true. 

But I do think it’s her baby.  I simply believe that she never went into labor in Texas, and that she gave birth as planned, in Alaska.  She’s a fucking fabulist who invented a big heroic pregnancy adventure, that never happened.

And sorry, but it’s in no way comparable to people beliving Barack Obama was not born here.  Unless someone has a fabulist story from his mother about a high risk, daring-do, death-defying, flight to HA, to give birth.

Her story isn’t true.  I don’t agree with those who say he isn’t her child, but they have more argument for that than anyone has for claiming her story is true.  It isn’t.  Never happened.

Comment #90: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  06:20 PM

Chet, your “skepticism” only makes sense if you assume that Sarah Palin is a humble, reasonable person not prone to making rash, self-centered decisions.  Clearly, you have no idea who we’re talking about.

Comment #91: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:20 PM

Also, I have to point out that a lot of people enjoy—-as phyl is demonstrating—-concern trolling women’s choices, on the grounds that everyone (including other women!) think that women are too stupid to breathe until proven otherwise. The “proof is in the pudding” standard doesn’t apply to women—-there’s a lot of woulda coulda shoulda instead.  But we’re all questioning Palin’s judgment, and I have to point out that while it seems stupid to fly while having contractions, she was right and all the concern trolls were wrong.  She did, in fact, have enough time.  It seems her claim that she knows her body after 5 pregnancies better than perfect strangers do holds up.

Comment #92: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:24 PM

I disagree.  The story stinks to high heaven.  A woman in a high-risk pregnancy goes into labor and then boards a plane and no one notices?  Stop, please.

Early term labor doesn’t look like the movies, with women crying and screaming.  But if you’re dubious, the most likely explanation is she experienced some pangs, and has exaggerated them after the fact.  She never made out like she was in late stage labor getting on a plane. Her story, at best, has a whiff of a politician overselling her courage.

Comment #93: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:27 PM

...Because if there’s one thing this post was definitely arguing, phylosopher, it’s that attacking women with sexism and bad-mommy-shaming is great as long as we don’t like their politics!

Comment #94: themmases  on  07/05  at  06:32 PM

Chet, you’re arguing that a woman wearing clothes that are obviously 3 sizes bigger than her usual outfit couldn’t be 7 months pregnant.  Your interest in this is clouding your judgment.  That, or you don’t realize that women gradually get bigger as they get more pregnant.

Comment #95: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:37 PM

Chet, not all lies are the same.  You are arguing that mildly exaggerating your birth story to impress people is the same lie as claiming another woman’s child.  Lies are no more all exactly the same than a woman at 7 months is as big as a woman at 9 months, a gestation age that Palin didn’t reach with Trig.

Comment #96: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:39 PM

Amanda, Obama DID provide his birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii DID verify his birth. That’s a much different scenario than Palin’s. Palin straight-up lied, saying she had provided her medical records when she in fact had not. If she didn’t want to provide those records out of concern for her own privacy, that’s a decision I can respect, as long as she was honest about it. But her lie makes me think *something* is up, though I don’t think it’s about Trig’s parentage. And she should be honest, not to placate conspiracy theorists, who, yes, will look for any excuse to believe in their conspiracy, but because she was seeking a national office and it speaks to her character when she lies about *anything*, no matter how consequential.

Comment #97: baddesignhurts  on  07/05  at  06:39 PM

And it didn’t work!  So, if the idea is to kill a conspiracy theory, it’s ineffective. Either way, I’m sort of creeped out by people from our side insisting that a birth certificate is produced.  It makes us look like tawdry panty sniffers, which is more the other side’s game.

Comment #98: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/05  at  06:41 PM

Amanda, the idea isn’t to kill a conspiracy theory. The idea is to be honest and forthright in all of your affairs.

Obama answered the question about his birth certificate as honestly and completely as he could, which is important EVEN IF YOU THINK IT WAS A STUPID QUESTION TO ASK. Palin demonstrably lied about the disclosure of her medical records. If she wasn’t going to provide them, the proper response would be something along the lines of “This is my personal life and it’s none of the public’s concern”. It’s been proven that she was not honest and forthright. Unless she truly is a pathological liar who lies for no reason, I think it’s reasonable to assume she lied to forward her own interests, though I really have no idea what those interests were.

Now, if you think it’s “tawdry panty sniffing” to ask for a candidate’s medical records, I think that’s a valid point of debate. I can understand voters wanting to have reasonable confidence that one’s President is going to survive her/his term. I can also understand wanting to protect candidates’ personal privacy.

Comment #99: baddesignhurts  on  07/05  at  06:59 PM

Andrew Sullivan hates women.  This isn’t tough.

Comment #100: Punditus Maximus  on  07/05  at  07:01 PM

Early term labor doesn’t look like the movies, with women crying and screaming.  But if you’re dubious, the most likely explanation is she experienced some pangs, and has exaggerated them after the fact.

Word. Women go “I was in labor for TWO WEEKS!” No, no you weren’t; you were in active labor for 4 or 8 or 10 hours or what the fuck ever and for almost two weeks before that you experienced increasing preliminary contractions, which maybe could be called early laborif we’re generous with the definition.

There isn’t usually a clear-cut line between Braxton-Hicks contractions and “real labor”; there isn’t usually a moment when a woman sits bolt upright and goes “honey it’s time!”; there isn’t usually an intense onset of toe-curling contractions that make a woman completely helpless and in need of rescue and brave, manly medical assistance.

And often the line is very, very blurred. I walked around having regular contractions in periods of 3 or 4 hours on, 3 or 4 hours off, for three days before I actually went into labor with my first kid. I went to the mall, visited my mom, and walked for miles. With my second kid, I spent most of an entire day in early labor—went grocery shopping at 3 different stores, fixed a snack at home, went for a long walk with Mr. Kristin. I was definitely in labor that time, but it was a slow buildup.

I know women whose water broke a couple days before they gave birth. They pretty much went on with their lives. Drove places, vacuumed, went shopping.

Bottom line, it *is* plausible that a woman having some intense Braxton-Hicks contractions or very early labor contractions, even having some fluid leakage, could get on a plane and fly for a day. She may have been under the impression she was in active labor, or she may be exaggerating the story. Or she may have been flying up for a scheduled induction. Whatevs: my point is, any of those options are more plausible than the idea that she picked up someone else’s baby, thus a) giving that person a scandal to hold over her head if they ever want to and b) voluntarily giving up the opportunity to trumpet herself as an Amazing Adoptive Mother Of A Baby With A Disability. Come on, who here thinks she’d miss out on THAT?

Comment #101: kristin  on  07/05  at  07:06 PM

Chet needs to be banned for egregious stupidity. Trig is someone else’s baby? Whose? And how come no one involved in this allegedly super-secret adoption has ever said a word about it? They could follow Levi Johnston’s footsteps and cash in on this story.

And explain her motivation for adopting someone else’s Down’s syndrome baby and then pretending he’s her.

If anything, it would benefit her MORE to own up to adopting a special needs kid, since it would make her look like even more of a do-gooder.

So Chet believes she put on a huge charade, faked a pregnancy, and risked ruining her political career if ever found out. And for….what? Why would anyone do that? Explain the motive.

Comment #102: Ashley Herzog  on  07/05  at  07:09 PM

It’s pretty funny how Chet is absolutely convinced that he understands pregnancy and labor better than, you know, actual women who have actually been pregnant and given birth, so he can safely ignore that pregnancy doesn’t run like clockwork and that every pregnancy is different, even for the same woman.

No one’s saying that Sarah Palin is not a liar, Chet.  What we’re saying is that your specific claims are irrational, they do not fit the available evidence, and you can’t seem to come up with any plausible scenario where, as kristin said, Palin would voluntarily give up a chance to be the saintly adoptive mother of a special-needs baby who rescued the poor mite from an abortionist’s scalpel.

Comment #103: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  07:25 PM

Again, all I’m asking for is one example of confirming evidence for Sarah’s claim of maternity to Trig.

All we want is the long-form birth certificate.  Why is that so hard to provide?

By the way, Chet, don’t forget to add the Anchorage Daily News to your long list of conspirators since apparently the announcement by Palin’s spokesperson from the hospital where she gave birth must have been faked with the ADN’s help.

Oh, and the president of the Alaska chapter of the National Down Syndrome Congress was in on the conspiracy, too, since she claims that she visited the Palins in the hospital after Trig was born and delivered an informational packet to them.  Liar!  LIAR!!

Comment #104: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  07:32 PM

Keithm - you do get that there is a BIG, HUGE, APPLES AND ORANGES difference between the patient’s physical room and the conditions on a medevac and the sardine can like confines and preparedness of a commercial flight?

Given that the statement I was referring to was “women in labour would be in too much pain to fly”, the difference isn’t critical.  If the statement was something along the lines of “women sitting in an airline seat would be in too much pain”, then you’d have a point and I wouldn’t have said anything in the first place.

Besides, a number of the the pregnant women we shipped?  They sat in a seat.  And if you think sitting in a Lear or King Air gives you tons of space, well, all I can say is that you’d be mistaken.

Comment #105: KeithM  on  07/05  at  07:32 PM

Can we dispense with the notion that being women automatically gives us special knowledge about childbirth and pregnancy?

Comment #106: Entomologista  on  07/05  at  07:42 PM

Is it possible to be both a skeptic and a tin-foil-hatter? Because it seems I combine both in one handy package.

The day after Palin was nominated, I got wind of her wild airplane ride, and then drew my own conclusions that something was stinky - well before I even checked out the post at the Daily Kos that launched a 1000 conspiracies, and days before a friend pointed me toward Sullivan’s blog. I’m just one Z-list (I prefer “boutique”) blogger, but I think it’s useful to recognize that instead of a bandwagon effect, various individuals independently began to ask apparently unanswerable questions.

I don’t know why Palin would fake a pregnancy, but she could take a lot of wind out of the rumors by releasing Trig’s birth certificate, as Obama has done with his own. That would deflate me and everyone else who aren’t are not professional, full-time TFHers. Most of us are highly educated, skeptical types. In fact, I came to this story precisely through my own skepticism.

That said, I think we should leave Bristol alone. It’s possible to juggle dates to create a scenario in which she bore two babies in quick succession. However, it fails the Occam’s Razor test. I can’t countenance picking on people who were minors at the time. Anyway, whenever we turn the camera toward Bristol, we’ve tilted it away from Palin herself. That’s not just ethically problematic, it’s also a tactical mistake.

Speaking of which: those pix from Sarah’s final weeks of pregnancy? There’s a reason why the women kicking up dust about this have largely been mothers - me, various Alaskan bloggers, and now (on a bigger stage) litbrit. Of course not all women experience pregnancy the same. Of course a few barely show until the final week. Those “late show-ers” are almost invariably bringing their first pregnancy to term. They’re not on baby number five. (BTW, I’d love to hear from other parents who can confirm or refute my observations.)

I come to this kerfuffle not just as a feminist and mother, but as a scholar with some relevant credentials. I wrote my dissertation on historical experiences of pregnancy, and though I’m not an M.D., I play one pretty well in the archives. I’m drawing on the absurd amount of time I’ve spent immersed medical journals (historical and present), plus my experiences as the mother of two sons.

Sure, my experiences are not representative, nor are those of my friends and research “subjects.” I’ve collected enough experiences to know, though, that Palin’s are just off the chart.

What most makes me wonder is Sarah’s wild ride. It smacks of gross negligence, which ought not to be a selling point with the pro-life crowd. It doesn’t even fit into her newish mama grizzly narrative. After all, the grizzly ought to protect her young, not eat ‘em ... or endanger them by giving birth an hour outside of Anchorage, be it by car or plane. (Amanda, if you don’t mind my pimping my old analysis of this tale of miracle and wonders, it starts here with Palin’s arrogance, moves on to condemning her cowboy judgment, and concludes by examining the tension between Palin’s actions and reproductive rights.) It is a narrative that fits pretty well with shooting wolfs from planes. When it comes to establishing love and concern for disabled kids? Hmmm, that doesn’t work quite so well.

Not saying I’ve got the answers. Only that the questions are compelling enough - once you direct the focus away from Bristol - that they’re not merely JAQing off. Even Sully, bless his male-centric soul, sees that Palin is using her cred as sacrificial mother of a “special needs” infant as a basis for her campaign. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to draw on one’s experience as a parent (or other caretaker) in campaigning or governing. I do think it’s bogus to build a campaign on a legend of fearless maternity that is either pathological or a prima facie lie. That’s the point where Sarah Palin’s right to family privacy evaporates into the same ether as her thoughts about Kyrgyzstan. (Notice that the argument over privacy does not depend on her anti-choice politics, though they add an especially rich irony.)

Comment #107: Sungold  on  07/05  at  07:47 PM

So Chet, did someone sneak the super-secret adopted Down’s syndrome baby into the hospital to give it to Sarah? We know she had the baby with her when the Down’s Syndrome foundation president came to visit. How did they pull that off? I’ll be damned. It sounds like something out of James Bond or something.

Add the hospital workers, doctors and nurses to the list of co-conspirators, since they’d obviously notice if she was checked into the hospital but not actually giving birth.

You’re an absurd person.

Comment #108: Ashley Herzog  on  07/05  at  07:50 PM

Absolutely nobody here has testified that they, personally, entered labor in the morning, felt contractions, had their water break, and then not only delivered an address to the Governor’s Union giving no outward signs of their medical situation, and then traveled a total of ten hours by airplane and car, all in the middle of the premature birth of a special-needs infant, which is under any circumstances classified as a medical emergency.

If you had bothered to follow the links I provided to you, you would have seen that even Sarah Palin didn’t claim she was in active labor at the time, and her doctor agreed with her:

“I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor,” Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn’t in labor.

The fact that she later exaggerated her story upon further telling doesn’t invalidate what she said at the time.  In fact, it’s probably much more likely that she was giving a version closer to the actual truth at the time since she hadn’t started embroidering the story to aggrandize herself yet.

Several women here have testified that they felt labor pains for several days before they went into active labor and that they kept to their normal routines.  But why accept reality when your conspiracy is so much more satisfying to you?

Comment #109: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  07:52 PM

The clock is ticking. You still haven’t explained what the motivation would be for pulling off this grand conspiracy. When people plot for months and carry out extremely risky plans, they have a reason.

So, why? Name one reason. If anything, she would have looked like a saint for adopting a Down’s baby.

Comment #110: Ashley Herzog  on  07/05  at  08:01 PM

Those “late show-ers” are almost invariably bringing their first pregnancy to term. They’re not on baby number five.

How many of those “late show-ers” had a tummy tuck in the seven years between baby #4 and baby #5?

Sorry, but believing that Sarah Palin is not Trig’s biological mother is nutty, tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff.  As I (and several others) have pointed out above, there’s another, even more logical conclusion one can draw from her 10-hour journey from Texas to Alaska that only makes sense if she was, in fact, pregnant, especially when you add in the fact that she and Todd didn’t tell anyone that Trig had been diagnosed with Down Syndrome until after she gave birth.  Search back for “Irish abortion” in the thread if you’re still unclear.

Comment #111: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:01 PM

Remember, no record of birth to anyone named “Palin” exists at the Wasilla hospital for the day of Trig’s birth.

Link, please.  You’ve made this unsubstantiated claim several times with zero backup while I’ve presented you with several contemporary news stories about the birth that ran within a day or two afterwards.

Comment #112: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:05 PM

Again, Mnem - what’s even one piece of corroboration evidence?

How about her doctor giving quotes to the paper discussing her pregnancy and their conversations about it the day she went into labor? 

Oh, no, wait, in your mind the fact that her doctor says that she was pregnant is clear proof that he’s lying!  Where will the lies end, Chet?  Where?

Comment #113: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:08 PM

Chet, they would have had to get a brand fucking new, newborn baby to Sarah. You do know that usually women who give birth are held for 24 hours after birth, right? Especially of, as you keep hammering on, a premature high-needs baby? You do know that most US hospitals have a rigorous system of wrist bands and supervision to make sure that babies are only in the possession of their parents and pediatrician? You do know that postpartum women and their newborns are usually scheduled for followup visits with their health care provider several times in the first couple months? You do know that newborns in the hospital are visited and evaluated by a pediatrician?

So yeah, you’re suggesting that the Palin family, the birth mother, the delivering OB, the perinatal or pediatric staff, the nurses taking care of that baby and that birth mother, and the OB nurses in attendance, would all have had to be in on it or at least hoodwinked to pull it off in secrecy.

Don’t be an ass, modern hospital birth is way more complicated and bureaucratic than “the palins, their doctor and the birth mother” being the only people intimately involved.

Comment #114: kristin  on  07/05  at  08:10 PM

And don’t forget, Chet, the fact that Palin publicly announced her pregnancy six weeks before the birth isn’t corroboration of the fact that she was pregnant, it’s proof positive that she made the whole thing up and wasn’t pregnant at all!

Funny how every piece of corroborating evidence in favor of her pregnancy just proves to you that it was all a sham.  Almost as though you’re not actually evaluating the evidence in a rational manner but picking at tiny inconsistencies to bolster your irrational conspiracy theory.

Comment #115: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:14 PM

But, at the time, they had records for April 18 2008, and no births were recorded to anyone named Palin on that date.

No, even according to what Sullivan is claiming no births with the last name of Palin were put in the public report that day. He’s not claiming that there’s no record at all, just that it’s not in the public report that the hospital releases only with the parents’ express permission. 

Do you think maybe it was because the Palins had already held a press conference to make the announcement that same day?  Nah, it must be a grand conspiracy.  And the fact that the hospital doesn’t have the record for that day up on their website anymore is just more proof, amirite?

Comment #116: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:20 PM

It would be really easy to get a DNA test and put this whole thing to rest.

Comment #117: Entomologista  on  07/05  at  08:24 PM

OK Chet, now you have someone involved who was able to switch or falsify the hospital-coded wrist bands (when they exist expressly as a way to try and make sure no one can falsify or switch them as a means of illicitly removing a baby). Which blows a hole in your stupid “only the Palins, the birth mother and one doctor would have to know about it” claim.

And what about the roomful of people present when a baby, especially a high-needs premature baby, is born? They suddenly developed total blindness? Or perhaps an hour-long window of complete amnesia? Convenient how you ignored that.

Comment #118: kristin  on  07/05  at  08:26 PM

Again - what’s even one piece of evidence that corroborates Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity?

Other than her doctor saying she was pregnant?  If her doctor is not lying and she was pregnant, but Trig is not her baby, where’s the baby she was pregnant with?

Or are you now trying to claim there was some kind of conspiracy right out of The Omen where the baby that Palin was pregnant with was stillborn so they did a switcheroo at the hospital and concealed the death?

Do you even hear yourself talking at this point?

If I tell the same lie twice, is that corroboration? Apply some skepticism. I know you haven’t forgotten how.

Yes, clearly if I point out that you’re claiming that everyone involved in this story including Palin’s doctor is lying and she was never pregnant at all, I must be the one who’s not sufficiently skeptical.  Because there’s nothing more rational than believing that Palin would announce a fake pregnancy 6 weeks before she faked giving birth and then blackmailed the president of the local Down Syndrome society into claiming she’d met with Palin in the hospital after Palin gave birth. 

Clearly, that’s much more rational than believing that a 45-year-old woman would have a premature Down Syndrome baby.  Like that ever happens.

Comment #119: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:27 PM

Nonetheless, no births to anyone named Palin were put into the public report. All of Sarah Palin’s other births were.

I didn’t realize that Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska with a spokesperson who announced all of her births to the press when all of her other children were born.  Silly me.

Again - what is even one piece of corroborating evidence to support Palin’s claim to maternity? Why is it you can’t present a single one?

I have presented several pieces of contemporary evidence with links to original stories that point to the fact that Palin was pregnant and that she gave birth.  The fact that you want to ignore that evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t support your nutty conspiracy theory doesn’t invalidate it.

Comment #120: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:32 PM

“You do know that usually women who give birth are held for 24 hours after birth, right?”—kristin, #131

This simply isn’t true.  Women who give birth can be out in an hour or two after birth if the conditions are okay.  My first son’s birth led to us staying about three hours more because his mother had a rough time and required some stitches and lost a lot of blood.  My second son’s birth was simple, and the paperwork was completed in about an hour and a half.  My third son’s birth was simple again, though we waited about two hours extra mostly because we couldn’t figure out what to name him.

Women who have given birth are not necessarily told to sit in wheelchairs, lie in beds, or any of that Yellow Wallpaper nonsense anymore.  Once it’s safe to send them on their way, the car seat has been checked and rechecked, and the paper work is done, that mother and child are out of there.

And hopefully that’s the last time I’ll ever compare the life experiences of Sarah Palin to those of my ex wife.

Comment #121: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  08:35 PM

It’s one person who asks for a wrist-band that says “Sarah Palin” on it. The person who prints it out at the computer asks who its for, they don’t check. They print it out and they give it to the maternity doctor or nurse, and they put it on the baby.

Wow.  At this point I have to assume that you’ve never even been inside a hospital, much less worked in one.  That’s not actually how it happens.

What “roomful of people”? Name them. What specific individuals are you claiming are a part of the conspiracy?

At a minimum, you would have to have the obstetrician and a nurse along with Palin’s husband.  With a premature birth, you would also have a neonatal nurse and probably a neonatal pediatrician to take charge of the baby as soon as it’s born.  This is, of course, assuming that there are absolutely no other nurses or aides in the entire maternity ward.  And it’s also assuming that you’re only talking about the people who would actually be present at the exact moment of birth and not any of the personnel in the NICU.

You’re specifically claiming that Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Palin’s doctor, is lying about Palin being pregnant and about being the attending physician at the birth, for which she provided specific details a few days afterward.  Please present your proof that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson is lying.

Comment #122: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:39 PM

Chet, you sound like a moron. My normal, low risk birth involved two midwives, two L&D;nurses, a neonatal nurse and an anesthesiologist as well as a couple other nurses who waited in the wings to whisk away the mess as the medicos were fussing over me and the baby. A high-risk birth? Gonna have more people involved than that.

If anyone here is making things up it’s you because clearly you haven’t the faintest clue what it’s actually like nowadays to labor and give birth in a hospital. You imagine a kindly family doctor, or something, privately takes care of the woman birthing, can simply arrange to hand the baby over to another family without anyone knowing, and no one else is involved or cares or has to account for the status of baby or mother.

Comment #123: kristin  on  07/05  at  08:39 PM

I’m claiming that there isn’t even one piece of evidence to corroborate Sarah Palin’s story. If I was wrong, it would be easy to prove - you could present even one piece of evidence.

I have presented multiple pieces of evidence to you.  The fact that you ignore them does not disprove them.  It just means that you’re so wedded to your irrational conspiracy theory that you can’t accept any evidence to the contrary and dismiss it all unless you can get <strike>the long-form</strike> Trig’s original birth certificate.

Comment #124: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:41 PM

You’ve provided not a single example of corroborating evidence for Palin’s claim to maternity.

Other than her doctor being quoted by name as being present at the birth and giving details about the birth.  But, hey, why pay attention to reality when your imaginary conspiracy theory is so much more satisfying?

Comment #125: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:43 PM

Women who give birth can be out in an hour or two after birth if the conditions are okay.

Yes, this is true. I opted to leave about 12 hours later rather than the 24 I could have had. But the standard for postpartum wings *is* 24 hours (mostly because that’s what insurance will pay for now).

No, women don’t have to lie in bed or sit in wheelchairs—I spent most of my time eating breakfast, taking a shower, entertaining visitors and attending a breastfeeding class held 10 feet down the hall from my room. But women who opt to leave 2 or 3 hours after the birth are simply not the norm (in my observation). Most mothers I know who had hospital births stayed the 24 hours and then went home.

Comment #126: kristin  on  07/05  at  08:43 PM

Also, kristin and others, including Chet:

There is a Federal Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA , that requires hospital workers, administrators, and others from revealing information about the health records of anyone without permission or cause.  I’m not yet convinced that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Kassebaum promoted it just for Sarah Palin’s benefit, but the jury is still out on that.  Still, there are some big potential penalties for discussing Palin’s afterbirth, the appearance of her belly immediately afterward, the prognosis of her son, or pretty much anything related to what happened in whatever hospital that was on whatever date that was.

It may be a conspiracy, but it’s probably just common sense that causes the many people who would have been at Trig’s birth from revealing everything to everyone.  Medical records laws are no joke, and revealing anything can lead to investigations, fines, and even criminal penalties.

Comment #127: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  08:47 PM

Do you see the ridiculous backbends and post-hoc justifications you’re coming up with to explain why you can’t present any corroborating evidence?

Okay, last time:  I have presented multiple pieces of corroborating evidence.  Every one of those pieces of evidence points to Sarah Palin being Trig’s biological mother.  You have ignored them.  Either that, or you have no idea what the word “corroborating” means and just threw it in there to try and sound real smart. 

The fact that you are ignoring evidence that I have conveniently placed in front of your face doesn’t mean you’re right.  It means that you have an irrational belief that cannot be moved even when evidence that you are being irrational is presented to you.  In fact, presenting evidence to you only convinces you even more that your irrational belief must be true.

Comment #128: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:49 PM

Mumbles because the internet gods must have eaten my post earlier.

Without getting into the whole conspiracy thing, it just makes a LOT more sense from a medical standpoint that Sarah is the mother of Trig. While 80% of babies with Down syndrome are born to women under 40, that is simply a matter of overall percentages of women giving birth- a lot more women have babies before 40 than after. From a JAMA paper in 1983:

Births with Down syndrome/ “normal” births, by rate
Age 15-19: 1/1250
Age 44: 1/30

There is a higher number of pregnancies where a fetus has trisomy 21, but many are miscarried. And while the data for this paper obviously wouldn’t show it, the actual number of births would probably be considerably lower with the advent of accurate prenatal testing these days.

On my own account, my daughter was born when I was in the lowest possible risk pool, age 20-24 (I was 23) when it was listed at about 1-1400. Still, though, the odds are considerably greater that a woman Sarah Palin’s age would have a baby with DS as opposed to a teen.

Comment #129: TheRealistMom  on  07/05  at  08:54 PM

Sarah Palin got on a plane while having contractions and flew all the way to Alaska from Texas. I’ve never understood why this is supposed to be proof of anything.

That’s because you’ve never given birth. 

I’m sorry, but this just pisses me off.  I’ve given birth multiple times, and there’s no stopping it.  You don’t get to cross your legs and say “not yet!”.

Have you ever had the stomach flu?  Tried NOT to throw up, despite the saliva and mucus gathering in your throat?  Begged the porcelain deity to deliver you from this pain in vain?  B/c birth is kinda like that.  Your body starts doing these things—these huge, painful, ugly things—whether or not you want it to.

If Palin claimed she had to get back to Alaska b/c her insurance wouldn’t cover it, I might buy that.  My insurance wouldn’t cover me if I delivered more than 150 miles from home.  But she doesn’t claim that.

I think her entire wild ride story is a fantasy.  She thought it made her sound tough and all pioneery, and now she’s stuck with it.  But it’s a complete fabrication.

This was Palin’s 7th pregnancy—she’s had 2 miscarriages.  It was preterm, with a known Down Syndrome baby.  It wasn’t just contractions.  She says HER WATER BROKE.  Once the amniotic sac has ruptured, not only is birth generally imminent (as in not hours away) but the chance of infection is increased dramatically.  As in doctors will induce labor if it doesn’t start on its own in 24 hours because of the risk to both mother and child.

Preterm, high risk infant.  Amniotic fluid leaking.  AND SHE DOESN’T GO TO THE HOSPITAL TO BE CHECKED OUT? 

No, she gets on TWO multi-hour flights and then drives to her rural hospital without a NICU.

It’s just such complete and total bullshit.  It’s classic Sarah Palin making up a story she thinks will make her look good without thinking about the ramifications too much.

If this story is true, she was hoping Trig would die.  That’s relevant b/c it gives lie to her ‘pro-life’ credentials and her saintly status for willingly giving birth to a DS baby.

Comment #130: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/05  at  08:54 PM

Her story is inconsistent with Sarah Palin’s.

In what respect, Charlie?

They both say that Palin was pregnant.

They both say that Palin flew home from Texas to Alaska.

They both say that Palin was expecting a Down Syndrome baby.

They both say that Palin gave birth to Trig.

They both say that the doctor was present at the birth.

What inconsistencies in their stories are you talking about?  Again, please note that we’re talking about the fact that both women told the same story at the same time.  The fact that Palin decided months later to exaggerate her claims to aggrandize herself doesn’t automatically invalidate what the doctor said at the time of the birth, especially since even now they both agree on the basic facts I stated above.

Comment #131: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  08:55 PM

No Chet, the burden of proof is on you. A woman says she gave birth - not unusual, nothing to see here, moving right along. Someone invents a wild conspiracy involving a woman, her husband, her doctor, a child, and a “birth mother”? Well, that’s precisely the kind of outlandish story that needs to be substantiated. So, Chet, name one piece of evidence that proves your theory.  Hint: what you have presented so far isn’t evidence of conspiracy so much as it is evidence of you being a conspiracy nut.

As far as the flying issue, I had a professor who had her water break in the night, went back to bed, jumped on the subway during morning commute rush, spent 30 minutes standing, taught a full day of classes whilst standing up (in high heels even! Bad mommy!) jumped on the subway during evening rush, standing again, cooked and ate a nice dinner with her husband, graded papers, then went to the hospital and gave birth the next morning. She had a full-on, typical New Yorker workday and evening, a lot longer than 10 hours, while in labor. She understood what she was going through, and she wasn’t uncomfortable. She was at the time (and I’m sure she still is, but I haven’t seen her in years) tiny and very fit. She did not show much until very late in that pregnancy, but she showed in her other pregnancy. Every pregnancy and labor are different, even for the same woman.

Comment #132: elena  on  07/05  at  08:59 PM

Well, Chet, I don’t believe that the baby isn’t hers, I think he is.  But I do agree that comparing this to the Obama birthers simply doesn’t hold up against the facts of both cases. 

The bottom line here, to me, is that she’s a known, proved, stone-cold liar.  Schmidt also publically marvelled over the fact that she instructed him to lie to the public about an Alaskan ethics investigation:


“She went out and said, you know, ‘This report completely exonerates me,’” Schmidt said. “And in fact, it — it didn’t. You know it’s the equivalent of saying down is up and up is down. It was provably, demonstrably untrue.”

There are far too many examples of this woman lying, casually, non-casually, for cause, for no cause, that for anyone to get upset about some people not beliving her story about the baby, they have to ignore the fact that a known serial liar, doesn’t deserve to ever be believed.  Ever.  And when Sullivan claims that there are people from the McCain campaign who don’t buy this story either, I think he’s telling the truth.  And I think they know this sick piece of work better than any of us here.

I am not a fan of Sullivan, and that is putting it mildly.  But he’s not wrong when he says that it’s possible for her to become the R nominee.  He’s right.  It is possible.  And if she’s the nominee, then it’s possible she becomes President.  And so yeah, she better get on releasing her medical records.  Cause when she says she released them?  That means the exact same thing everything this pathological lunatic says means - the exact opposite.  She didn’t realease them.  She’s lying.  Again.

And ALL Presidential nominees must release their medical records.  And Palin isn’t getting a free pass just because she’s a woman.  That’s anti-feminist.

Comment #133: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  09:00 PM

Remember, skepticism is when you don’t take people’s word for things.

No, skepticism is when you look at all of the available evidence and draw a logical conclusion.  Assuming from the start that everyone involved is lying about everything so you can ignore anything they say isn’t skepticism.  It’s fishing for the evidence you want and ignoring anything that contradicts your pre-formed belief.

Comment #134: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:01 PM

And stop with the “bad-mommy” shit.

This sick twist is depending on feminists to help her lie her way straight into the white house.

Not with my help.

Comment #135: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  09:02 PM

The fact that they’re all telling stories that can’t be mutually reconciled means their testimony can’t corroborate your innocence.

Please state what these irreconcilable facts are.  It’s not like the doctor is saying that Palin gave birth in Texas but Palin is saying she gave birth in Alaska.  They’re both saying the same thing.  In fact, they’re both claiming to have been present in the same place at the same time when Palin gave birth.  How is that the same thing as Palin claiming to be in one place when she gave birth and the doctor claiming to be in another?

Comment #136: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:05 PM

But everything about Sarah Palin’s account is unusual; everybody’s admitted that. It’s a strange account, even she knows it, which is why she tells the story so often.

You’re conflating her account of her traveling from Texas to Alaska with her account of giving birth and assuming that if she exaggerated her story about her trip from Texas to Alaska, she must therefore be lying about having been pregnant in the first place.

In other words, you’ve looked at a single piece of her story and extrapolated to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised to hear to claim that Trig is really a space alien and that’s what the cover-up is all about.

Comment #137: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:10 PM

No, they’re not saying the same thing. The doctor says she wasn’t in labor. Palin says she was.

WTF are you talking about?  Her doctor never—not once—said that Palin wasn’t pregnant.  She said that she didn’t think Palin was in labor during her trip from Texas to Alaska.

It’s one hell of a stretch to go from “she wasn’t in active labor at that time and I had to induce labor when she arrived at the hospital” to “Sarah Palin was never pregnant at all.”  And yet that’s what you’re claiming.

Comment #138: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:14 PM

I always figure the best response to this is:  We have no right to her medical records.  And if her plane-story is true, it shows what a terrible decision maker she is.

Comment #139: Crissa  on  07/05  at  09:15 PM

Also, as the older child, I did alot of child-care for my sister (who was born when I was seventeen).  And that was with my mom hiring a nanny for the majority of day care.

Comment #140: Crissa  on  07/05  at  09:20 PM

I also realy want to add, because this really pisses me off, that stating that there is something wildly irresponsible about getting on a plane when you believe you are in labor, is not mommy shaming, or saying “bad mommy”.  Okay. 

We can have all of the anecdotal stories from mommies we want, I have my own.  I have friends who have mulitple children who laugh out loud over this story because they say, the more births, the faster the baby comes.  So who cares about anecodotal “my mommy friend agrees with me” stories?  Forget that.

Has anyone here ever been on a plane that had to make an emergency medical landing?  I have.  I was on a plane where an infant stopped breathing.  And when a plane makes an emergency medical landing, it’s terrifying for everyone aboard.  It goes down, fast, and on a steep angle.  It risks everyone’s life on board.

And anyone who wants to act like giving birth is nothing, that’s bullshit.  No, being pregnant doesn’t make you handicapped.  But any medical procedure carries inherent risks.  Pregancy is no exception.  And a woman giving birth to her fifth child, when she is in her 40’s, and the the child is known to be down syndrome, has no business getting on an airplane when she believes she is in labor.  She has no way of knowing when that baby is coming, or what complications may accompany it.  And she has no right to get on that plane. Why do you think the airline stated they did not know she was in labor?  They wouldn’t have fucking let her on, it’s a risk to all their passengers.

So again, stop with the “bad mommy ” bullshit.

She had no right.  No right.

Or would have had no right.  You know, if this had actually ever happened. Which it didn’t.

Comment #141: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  09:24 PM

Certainly her unbelievably improbably, shifting, and inconsistent accounts of the birth and surrounding circumstances are reason to give her account less credibility.

Her account of the actual trip, sure.  But the idea that giving a shifting account of her trip from Texas from Alaska puts the entire idea of her being pregnant at all in doubt only makes sense on Planet Insanity, where you have apparently taken up residence.

And what is there? A doctor who disputes central elements of the story.

The central element of the story you’re telling is that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig.  Her doctor does not dispute a single element of that story.

Absolutely zero physical evidence or records.

Unless someone sends you a picture of Palin’s vagina with Trig’s head crowning, it’s all a lie!

I’m starting to think all you’re looking for is some birth porn to whack off to.  Can’t you just Google for it like a normal pervert?

A dozen people who should have been there at the birth but can’t be identified or found.

Chet, you don’t even know how a hospital creates a wristband for a patient.  And we’re supposed to believe you when you claim no one other than the doctor has said they were present?  Really?

Everything that would provide independent corroboration of Palin’s maternity is conveniently absent.

Again, only on Planet Insanity.  Here in the real world, there’s plenty of evidence that Palin was pregnant and gave birth.  If all you have to prove otherwise is that she exaggerated the story of her trip from Texas to Alaska, that’s a pretty weak reed.

Well, at least I know I never have to take you seriously again when you claim that you’re completely rational and it’s all the rest of us who believe ridiculous things.

Comment #142: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:25 PM

Chet:
Well, no, it’s not. That, after all, would be impossible; Bristol would have been pregnant again too soon.

Incorrect. it’s possible for a woman to get pregnant again less than a month after giving birth. it’s not at all common, but it’s possible. It’s much more possible for a 7-month preemie to be the result of such a pregnancy. Still, Occom’s Razor cuts towards Trig being Palin’s kid, and Tripp being her grandchild.

Subsequent births result in shorter labors, not longer ones.

Generally, that’s the case, but not always. My big sister was in labor for less than 3 hours with her 2nd kid, more than 20 with her 4th.

Sungold: I don’t know why Palin would fake a pregnancy, but she could take a lot of wind out of the rumors by releasing Trig’s birth certificate,

Not releasing said birth certificate arguably benefits her more. By not doing so, it let’s the conspiracy theorists on ‘our’ side continue to look like loons.

Entomologista: It would be really easy to get a DNA test and put this whole thing to rest.

Not without the Palin’s cooperation. Though I suppose someone could steal one of Trig’s dirty diapers.

Comment #143: Mike Crichton  on  07/05  at  09:27 PM

Does the doctor claim she induced labor? Does Sarah Palin claim her labor was induced?

It’s in the fucking article that you refused to read because you, like, totally knew it’s all a lie so there was no need to look at actual evidence.

Yep, nothin’ more scientific and rational than refusing to look at evidence.

Comment #144: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:27 PM

To be more clear:  yes it’s true that some labor lasts for days.  But some lasts for hours, or an hour.  Some women give birth in fucking tax cabs.

She couldn’t have known. 

this is all bullshit.  I can’t believe some of the things I"m reading here.

Comment #145: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  09:29 PM

Or would have had no right.  You know, if this had actually ever happened. Which it didn’t.

Just to clarify—are you saying that Palin’s account of her heroic journey is bullshit, or are you agreeing with Chet that Palin wasn’t pregnant at all and Trig is the secret child of some unknown over-40 mom in Alaska?

Comment #146: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:30 PM

Chet,

You are asking questions for which only Sarah Palin can decide to answer.  Really, that’s the case.  Her doctor, other attending physicians, the HR people for the State of Alaska, the nurses, the guy who takes out the trash at the hospital, the laundry staff, the lab people, and everyone else who may or may not know something conclusive CAN’T TELL WITHOUT SARAH’S PERMISSION.  All the “I’m just asking questions” in the world cannot get you past this clear barrier to your desire to know all about the custody trail of that which was or wasn’t in Sarah Palin’s ladybits.  They won’t tell you, not just because you’re a jerk but also because they aren’t allowed to do so without her permission.  Say what you want to regarding her “hiding the truth” and whatnot, but don’t go around asking for evidence that isn’t there because anyone with a brain and a little decency would know that those records aren’t public.

Comment #147: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  09:32 PM

    Please present your proof that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson is lying.

1) Her story is inconsistent with Sarah Palin’s.
2) There is no physical evidence that corroborates either her story or Palin’s.
3) She has every reason to lie, given Sarah Palin’s demonstrated vindictiveness (or her own sense of medical ethics and the disclosure of medical information.)
Comment #154: Chet on 07/05 at 07:44 PM

1.  But Sarah Palin is a big fat liar.  If their stories don’t agree, I believe the doctor.

2.  What physical evidence do you want?  A new birth certificate is created when a child is adopted, and it’s not marked “adoptive birth certificate.”  It makes it appear the child is the physical child of the adoptive parents.  It looks just like a regular one, so that people who don’t want their kids to know they’re adopted can keep it a secret.  So that wouldn’t do any good.  It would be a violation of the Palins’ privacy to do DNA sequencing, and given her often irrational defensiveness, we are unlikely to get it by asking.  Her doctor said it was her child.  Do you need everyone else who worked at and around her birth to come forward?  Don’t you think, if she is such a shit, and is lying, that there would be someone out there who will step forward and explain “the truth” if it’s not that she gave birth to Trig on the day claimed?

3.  An ethical doctor doesn’t lie if asked to give out medical information they’re not allowed to share.  They say, “I can’t tell you.”  Palin obviously didn’t want any additional information shared about her birth, so it wasn’t.  If Palin didn’t want her to say she gave birth (or didn’t give birth, assuming you’re right), she could have told her to only say “Mother and baby are resting comfortably.”

All this assumes Palin is scary powerful and vengeful and can do anything!  Except get someone to fake some kind of physical evidence, like a birth certificate.  Which, if Trig is adopted, will have hers and First Dude’s name on it anyway.

Comment #148: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  09:34 PM

Mnemosyne, I think Trig is hers.  I do not believe for one moment that her water broke in Texas and that she boarded the plane in labor.

I wouldn’t bet my life that the baby is hers.  But I think it is.

I also just don’t see how someone who is a known pathological liar, whose own senior campaign strategist, a veteran in the business,  a well-respected politico in Republican circles, came out and told us she’s nothing but a liar, and that “up is down and down is up” with her, should be believed about anything.

I’m sorry but I don’t think that anyone who disbelieves anything this person says, is crazy, or any kind of a lunatic.

You know, she claimed that she released her medical records, and she hadn’t.  So how does she get away with that?  And do we continue to let her get away with it if she does run for President?  What if she is hiding something?  I mean, I don’t know.  I personally believe she’s capable of anything, it is certainly far from unheard of for an older sister or a mother to pretend to be the mother to an inconvienent child of a young family member.  I don’t believe it’s true, but it is so far from removed from being comparable to the Obama birther bullshit, that I think it shouldn’t be mentioned together.  I know that the right claims this, but false equivalence is all they do.  They do it on everything.  It doesn’t mean we have to go along with it.

I certainly don’t agree with asking for DNA testing.  But if she’s going to run for President, she must release her medical records.  Same as everyone else.

Comment #149: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  09:41 PM

You know, the more I think about Sullivan’s obsession with this story, the more I think it’s a manifestation of his knee-jerk pro-life beliefs.  Because if Sarah Palin already has four children, she couldn’t possibly not want a baby with Down Syndrome, so she couldn’t possibly have taken risks during a high-risk pregnancy in the hope that she would have a “natural” miscarriage or stillbirth.  Therefore, the only logical answer is that she was never pregnant at all!

The probability that a vocally “pro-life” politician wouldn’t risk having word of a late-term abortion leak out and would instead prefer to put the pregnancy at risk to lose the baby “naturally” wouldn’t even occur to him because only horrible, evil child-hating women have abortions in the first place.

I’m not sure what Chet’s obsession is, except that I’m expecting him to demand an exhumation so we can all see that Trig’s real mother was a jackal!

Comment #150: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:46 PM

The central element is that she started to give birth in Texas and finished in Alaska. The doctor says that’s not how it happened at all.

Please show me where the doctor said that Palin was never pregnant.  That’s your claim.  Now prove that she was never pregnant at all and that everyone in every story I have linked you to was lying when they said that she was.

Comment #151: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:49 PM

Why can’t you answer simple questions, Mnem?

Because every time I answer one of your questions in plain English with backup links, you ignore the answer.  Then, two comments later, you come back claiming that I never answered the question at all and I have to answer it all over again.  Two comments after this one, you’re going to claim I still haven’t answered the questions I’ve answered for you three times already.  I think I’m done.

You really should see a professional about these delusions of yours.  When you’ve gotten to the point where an elaborate conspiracy theory where Sarah Palin somehow secretly adopted an anonymous woman’s Down Syndrome baby after announcing a fake pregnancy 6 weeks earlier is more logical to you than over-40 Sarah Palin giving birth prematurely to a Down Syndrome baby, you should probably head down to the ER and ask to be involuntarily committed because you’ve lost touch with reality.

Comment #152: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  09:55 PM

“HIPAA applies to everyone, not just to Sarah Palin. Yet, hardly anybody has difficulty corroborating their maternity or paternity of their children.

“How do you explain this discrepancy?”—Chet

I think it has something to do with most people being open to the whole process and not being celebrities for whom a pregnancy would be a public shaming event (Sarah had two miscarriages? Why bother people and have private grief go public if you might get a third? And why are some of you idiots making me feel almost sorry for the woman?)  If Sarah-Palin-level skepticism was applied to your birth, Chet, it’s quite likely that many of the participants will be unavailable for comment and unwilling to do so.  And thus, it’s quite likely that you were a bigfoot baby who was delivered by the ice cream man who worked for the Soviets and had to hide you from the John Birch Society and the Trilateral Commission.  And I bet you can’t disprove that or explain away the discrepancies.

Comment #153: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  09:59 PM

OK, Chet, then why? What’s the motivation for Palin to take some other woman’s child? Indulge me, please.

And, this:

We know that later that night is when Trig was born, though there’s no record he was born to Palin.

What? Who was he born to, then? How in the name of all that is sane would a woman turn up in this tiny town hospital, mysteriously give birth and leave without a child and all without anyone noticing? Or a local woman walking around preggo, giving birth, coming home sans child, again no one noticing? And the hospital covering it up? And the small-town tongues not wagging? And, to you, this sound more plausible than Palin simply telling a bullshit story to make herself seem like a tough Alaskan moose-killing hockey mom? Are you even listening to yourself?

Comment #154: elena  on  07/05  at  09:59 PM

Mnemosyne, it has occurred to me at least, that she may have actually done everything she claims to have done.  And if she did, then yeah, I believe she would have been trying to get rid of the baby “naturally”.  I mean, it’d really be no different than back in my grandma’s days when she believed that jumping up and down a lot might trigger a miscarriage.

But if she did that, then that’s a problem too.  Not only is she a liar and a hypocrite, but she put a planeload of people at risk. 

Whatever happened, I go back to what I first said: her story as it stands, stinks to high heaven.  And that’s going to invite all sorts of speculation.  Some of it likely, some of it unlikely.

Comment #155: JennyLI  on  07/05  at  10:01 PM

That is not and has never been my claim, and you’re fully aware of that.

No?  So when you said in #87, “The reason the conspiracy theory persists is because there is absolutely zero evidence of Sarah’s actual maternity, and substantial reason to believe that her story is a physical impossibility,” you were not claiming that Sarah Palin is not Trig’s biological mother?  What exactly were you claiming?

There’s no need to lie, Mnem. Especially to defend a liar like Palin. Disgusting.

So have you completely forgotten that you said things like, “Biologically, it’s not Bristol’s baby. That only proves it’s Sarah Palin’s baby if they’re the only two women on Earth. Regardless of who the actual mother is, Sarah Palin’s account of her pregnancy is a physical and medical impossibility.”

Seriously.  Get help.  If you’re now denying that you said things that you said in this thread, and calling other people liars for quoting things that you said, you’ve lost touch with reality.  What’s next, telling us that Sarah Palin broke into your account and posted those things in your name because you don’t remember saying them?

Comment #156: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:01 PM

She has no way of knowing when that baby is coming, or what complications may accompany it.  And she has no right to get on that plane. Why do you think the airline stated they did not know she was in labor?  They wouldn’t have fucking let her on, it’s a risk to all their passengers.

So again, stop with the “bad mommy “ bullshit.

She had no right.  No right.

Or would have had no right.  You know, if this had actually ever happened. Which it didn’t.
Comment #185: AnglScarlett on 07/05 at 08:24 PM

Because (invoking Occam) she wasn’t in labor.

this is all bullshit.  I can’t believe some of the things I"m reading here.
Comment #189: AnglScarlett on 07/05 at 08:29 PM

You seem to think everyone’s saying she got on the plane, in labor, and this was fine, and it was a good idea.  If so, I have to wonder what blog you’re reading.

Most of us have been saying it wouldn’t have been a good idea, but she probably wasn’t in labor, and therefore maybe it wasn’t as bad as it sounded later when she exaggerated her pioneer hardiness.

Others are saying it was a crappy idea, she was in labor and lied to her doctor and the airlines about being in labor and this shows her poor decision making skills.  Which, if she was in active labor, I agree with.

You’re mixing everything together, as is Chet.  Stop and reread, try to separate the arguments and ideas, rather than just being shocked and offended at what you think people are saying.

Comment #157: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  10:04 PM

Actually, you know what, Chet, fuck it. Enjoy the tinfoil. But yes, you are asking for much. She does not owe you evidence of giving birth. Just get that through you head: no woman, no matter how loathsome, owes you or anyone else proof of anything to do with her reproductive organs or choices.

Comment #158: elena  on  07/05  at  10:04 PM

So, Chet, you want a birth certificate, even though adoptive birth certificates are ROUTINELY generated with the adoptive parents’ name on it and no indication that it’s an adoptive birth certificate?

What would that prove?  Nothing.  Nothing at all. 

The only reason they wouldn’t have such a thing would be because the all-powerful Sarah Palin couldn’t get something every other adoptive parent gets.

Comment #159: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  10:07 PM

Yes, Chet, the fact that criminal conspiracies exist proves that your specific obsession must be true, too, because shut up, that’s why.

Stanley Moon: You’re a nutcase! You’re a bleedin’ nutcase!
George Spiggott: They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo.
Stanley Moon: They said it of a lot of nutcases too.

Comment #160: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:14 PM

I never claimed the doctor claimed that Sarah Palin wasn’t Trig Palin’s mother, you idiot.

You claimed that the doctor was lying when she said she induced Sarah Palin’s labor and Trig is Sarah Palin’s child.  So is the doctor delusional and needs a padded cell next to yours since it never happened and she claims that it did, or is she lying?

Comment #161: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:18 PM

Chet! 

Are you not getting the part where the state creates a document that falsely puts the adoptive parents’ names in the place of the parents?

An adopted Trig would have such a document.  And you think this would be evidence that Trig was…not adopted?  Why?

Comment #162: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  10:19 PM

Those are merely examples of successful conspiracies that were significantly larger in scope than the conspiracy you’ve suggested is too large to be tenable.

Actually, what I said is that your conspiracy is completely illogical so believing in it is irrational.  Which is true.  Secretly withholding lifesaving treatment from syphilis patients so you can scientifically document the progress of the untreated disease in human subjects is completely logical.  Evil, but logical.  Same with testing hallucinogens on humans and attacking the World Trade Center for the second time in 10 years in the name of global jihad.

What is the logic in your claim that Sarah Palin publicly announced a fake pregnancy, took a plane 10 hours from Texas to Alaska, and had her doctor lie and claim that she gave birth so she could adopt a Down Syndrome baby from an anonymous unknown woman?

Comment #163: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:25 PM

I didn’t claim that. I asked if Sarah Palin claimed the same thing, and asked if there was any evidence to support that.

So is the doctor lying or crazy?  You can’t simultaneously claim that Sarah Palin didn’t give birth to Trig and that her doctor is telling the truth when she says Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig in her presence. 

Or is this another of your psychotic manifestations where you claim that they’re both telling the truth and Trig simultaneously is and is not Sarah Palin’s biological child because, you know, space aliens?

Comment #164: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:31 PM

The logic is that it’s immanently more reasonable than her fictitious, medically impossible, completely unsubstantiated superbirth.

You keep saying “unsubstantiated.”  I don’t think that word means what you think it means. 

Neither does “medically impossible,” by the way, since you seem to think it’s medically impossible for a woman over 40 to have either a premature baby or a Down Syndrome baby despite the statistics that have been repeatedly quoted for you in this thread.

Is Sarah Palin lying about flying for 10 hours while in active labor?  Most likely, especially since her doctor says she had to induce labor when Palin arrived in Alaska.  Does the fact that she lied about being in active labor during that specific time period mean she was never pregnant at all?  Only if you live on Planet Insanity, Population You.

Comment #165: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:35 PM

How should I know, stupid?

You’re claiming that Trig is an anonymous over-40 woman’s baby that Sarah Palin adopted.  The doctor says Trig is Sarah Palin’s baby.  So is the doctor lying or delusional?  Shouldn’t you try to find these things out before you start making up insane stories like Trig being secretly adopted?

Who the fuck said anything about “space aliens”? What on Earth is wrong with you, Mnem?

I’m just trying to figure out what the dimensions of your delusion are here.  You think that Trig is not Sarah Palin’s baby, that Palin didn’t give birth to him, but also that the doctor is telling the truth when she says she was present at the birth and Palin is the mother.  I can’t quite figure out how you can claim that both of these things are true at the same time since you’re also claiming you don’t think the doctor is a liar.

So if the doctor is telling the truth that she was present when Palin gave birth and Palin was never pregnant, clearly you must think there are space aliens involved.  Or perhaps Lucifer.  I haven’t quite gotten you to admit which one yet, but I think we’re getting there.

Comment #166: Mnemosyne  on  07/05  at  10:41 PM

Chet, you never answered the question “Why? Why would she fake a pregnancy instead of openly adopting a baby, when doing the latter would’ve given her pro-life street cred to cash in, as well?”
Furthermore, is the burden of proof really on the side of the people who are using Occam’s razor? After all, where’s the proof that Sasha and Malia are really Obama’s children, and not adorable, pint-sized yet deadly android bodyguards?

Comment #167: Selena777  on  07/05  at  10:47 PM

I enjoy this thread.  When things don’t matter, conspiracies and their proponents are very fun.  Sure, this does concern Sarah Palin, and she might very well become important again someday, but that’s not the case in this matter.

Please carry on, Chet.  That guy who quit his latenight talkshow because the Loch Ness Monster threatened his family is relying on you to proudly wave the Standard of Truth.

Also: tell me again how HIPAA applies to everyone!  You just haven’t shared that enough.  (Nor, apparently, read even the wikipedia summation of the law.)  And while you’re at it, can you discuss whether a sleeper cell of Saudis could have been on the Grassy Knoll?  I’ll check in later, since I’m sure it will take a while to gather your evidence.  Or at least your questions.

Comment #168: 3letterjon  on  07/05  at  10:57 PM

Trig Palin’s birth to Sarah Palin has never been certified or substantiated by any evidence whatsoever.

Well, using that standard, I’m forced to question the claim that Malia and Sasha Obama are actually the president’s own children.  And did Hillary Clinton really give birth to Chelsea Clinton?  I’ve never seen any evidence confirming these things to be true.

I’m just wondering when it became standard practice to demand that politicians release the birth records of their own children to the public, and if they don’t, then we should assume that their claims of parentage are false.

There are ten million things about Sarah Palin I can’t stand, and ten million valid criticisms that can be made against her.  This isn’t one opf those things.

The whole “Trig isn’t Sarah’s baby!” nonsense makes the tiny group of idiots promoting it sound about as kooky as the Birthers.

If people on the left who propogate this idiocy really want to help the cause of progressivism, they can start by letting go of this garbage which only makes our side look paranoid and delusional.

But, it’s a free country.  If idiots on our side want to continue to sound like idiots by promoting this batshittery, there’s nothing to stop them from doing so.  And just as they have a right to push ridiculous theories on the rest of us, we have a right to tell them that they sound like paranoid freaks detached from reality when they blather on woith this conspiracy theory.

Comment #169: DTGslu2K  on  07/05  at  11:07 PM

Yet, hardly anybody has difficulty corroborating their maternity or paternity of their children.

BECAUSE, you fucking nut, for every other woman on the planet it’s enough to

1) announce they’re pregnant
2) go to the hospital, where it’s reasonable to assume numerous people attended to her
3) be seen in the hospital postpartum ward with a newborn child
4) bring said newborn child home.

Only with Sarah Palin, for what reasons I cannot fully grasp but which seem to be disturbingly unbalanced and vituperative, are you demanding fucking video of the baby coming out of her vagina or some shit. Imagining that some anonymous 40-year-old woman was ghosted into the hospital to give birth with no records and no one seeing her (maybe in the public restroom? I fucking dunno) and the baby was given to Sarah without anyone witnessing it. For no reason. And spouting nonsense about “medical impossibility”.

If the lady next door to you lied about using your parking spot once, a year ago, are you going to psychotically attack her when she comes home from the hospital and demand proof that the newborn in her arms is biologically hers? God.

Comment #170: kristin  on  07/05  at  11:35 PM

  Are you not getting the part where the state creates a document that falsely puts the adoptive parents’ names in the place of the parents?

Yes, I am getting that part, thank you. Again - that would nonetheless be one more document in corroboration of Sarah Palin’s account than has been presented.
Comment #219: Chet on 07/05 at 09:26 PM

Why?  I asked this before.  Why would a document that most adopted children get be proof that Trig is not adopted?

The alternative hypothesis isn’t that a missing BC means Trig wasn’t adopted, because in both cases you’d have a document with Sarah and Todd listed as his parents.  The alternative hypothesis would instead be that a missing BC means that he wasn’t adopted or born to Sarah and Todd, but is instead a stolen baby.  Or that Sarah can’t even get a document everyone else who adopts a baby can get.  Despite her great power and fearsomeness.

You seem to think if someone tells a story about something, then that something must not be real.  The parallel seems to be that I tell a police officer I only had two beers, and actually I’m drunk on eight beers and six shots of schnapps, it means I’m not actually driving a car.

Comment #171: oldfeminist  on  07/05  at  11:43 PM

After reading all the two hundred-some comments I think Chet has the better part of the argument, but then way upthread, hours ago, I did put up a link of Palin showing a whole hell of a lot in the Track pregnancy.  Yeah, I know nine months is further along than seven, but I doubt the same person of the 1989 photo would show so little nineteen years later.

My two disagreements with Chet, for the record:

1.  Skepticism for me includes being skeptical about the contention that Palin is the biggest worstest liar evah.  Sure, she lies a lot, but I don’t think she’s off the lying politician spectrum.

2.  Chet has refused to speculate about what the true story is: I’ll go out on the tinfoil limb and say the birth of Bristol’s baby in December 2008 doesn’t refute the possibility that Bristol gave birth to Trig.  Weighing seven pounds is in the range of possibility for an eight-month fetus.

Eventually we’ll know something—somebody, maybe in the pay of Sully, will grab some DNA and test it.  I believe that’s why John Edwards finally confessed: he knew all his hotel pillowcases were waiting for him.

Comment #172: Unree  on  07/05  at  11:52 PM

There’s not a single piece of evidence that supports Palin’s claim to maternity, there’s just repeated instances of her making that claim.

This is a lie, Chet.  Her doctor says he delivered a baby to her.  It doesn’t matter if his statements contradict hers; Palin is perfectly capable of being the baby’s mother and lying about it.  You’ve admitted that the doctor has made a claim regarding Palin’s pregnancy, and now you’re lying about the existence of the claim.

So, now that we’ve established that you’re a liar, we can ignore anything you say, by your own ethics.  Have fun over on Sully’s blog.  He’s a liar too, so the both of you probably have plenty of stuff to talk about.

Comment #173: Punditus Maximus  on  07/06  at  12:01 AM

dear god chet, just shut up. you actually sound like a child. and you saying OTHER PEOPLE sound like they are making things up is amazing. it really is. you’re the one making things up and saying ‘nyah nyah i don’t have to prove it, because i said so.’ i’m sorry, who are you? besides some five year old on the internet? the ‘burden of proof’ is on the moron MAKING THINGS UP. seriously, why is anyone wasting time on this lunatic? adults should not act like preschoolers, saying their fantasies based on nothing are true BECAUSE THAT’S WHY. seriously. shut up. you have nothing whatsoever to say and frankly you sound like you’re delusional.

Comment #174: chibi  on  07/06  at  12:03 AM

There could also be a hundred reasons why Palin has refused to release medical records.  She’s a terrible, abusive person—as is her husband.  I have little doubt that there are some skeletons there.  But the refusal to release the birth certificate could trivially be just to yank her opponents’ chains.  There’s literally no gain there.

Comment #175: Punditus Maximus  on  07/06  at  12:04 AM

After all, Hillary did lie about that whole gunfire in Bosnia thing - a confirmed fabulist with a notoriously mendacious husband. Where’s Chelsea’s birth certificate? The public has a right to know the truth!

Imagining that some anonymous 40 year old woman was ghosted into the hospital to give birth with no records and no one seeing her (maybe in the public restroom? I fucking dunno) and the baby was given to Sarah without anyone witnessing it.

Then, the birthmother was promptly shot by Dick Cheney. Hey, can’t have a blackmail risk running around out there for two decades!

Comment #176: Selena777  on  07/06  at  12:06 AM

  Why would a document that most adopted children get be proof that Trig is not adopted?

Both natural and adopted children get them, so it would be at least some evidence that Trig is Sarah Palin’s natural child.

Or her adopted child.

A = “child has birth certificate listing parents Sarah and Todd Palin”
B = “child is natural child of Sarah and Todd Palin”
C = “child is adopted child of Sarah and Todd Palin”

Symbolically the argument is

A > ( B V C)

Now, you want to see A because you think this will prove something?

Well, it does.  But nothing that is useful to you.

It proves “B V C” (via modus ponens), “child is natural child of Sarah and Todd Palin, or child is adopted child of Sarah and Todd Palin.”

It doesn’t prove in any way that adoption is unlikely or impossible.  Says nothing about the chances of one versus the other.  Nothing at all. 

Please tell me how this is valuable information in determining whether Trigg is Sarah and Todd’s natural child, or Trigg is Sarah and Todd’s adopted child.  Your desired premise doesn’t favor either part of the conclusion—at least, you’ve never shown how it would.

No, the parallel is that when Bill says you couldn’t have taken the cookies because he saw you at the library, and when Sam says he saw you at the ice cream shop, and Dan says he saw you three towns over in the bar - you haven’t disproved you’ve taken the cookies. You’ve made it a lot more likely that you’re lying about having not taken them. Even though all your confederates agree that you didn’t take the cookies.

But it seems like your contention is that, because everyone has a different story, the cookies didn’t exist, and that’s why they’re not there. 

The problem with your argument is that Palin doesn’t have six people here supporting six different stories about her pregnancy.  There are a bunch of people saying “she wasn’t in labor, she was leaking amniotic fluid, maybe had some Braxton-Hicks, which is DIFFERENT, called her doctor, doctor okayed the flight.”  And Sarah the known liar saying “I was IN LABOR but stuck it out doncha know mavericky pioneer you betcha.”

Comment #177: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  12:12 AM

242 comments on THIS inanity?  Lordy.

Comment #178: Eric_RoM  on  07/06  at  12:22 AM

Can Amanda block this asshole from the site?

“No other woman on the planet was videotaped delivering an address to the Governor’s Union - supposedly in the throes of labor”

LOL. I guess you learned about childbirth from scenes in movies like “Knocked Up” where the women are screaming and cussing with the first contraction. It doesn’t work that way. She even said at the time that she was having contractions, but she knows what active labor feels like, and she wasn’t in it. (I do like your extra-dramatic use of the word “throes,” though.)

Guys, we’re dealing with a certified, tinfoil hat-wearing birther. He is no better than the Teabaggers who get up and spit about how Obama is a citizen of Kenya. No evidence will ever satisfy him. He COULD be shown a video of Trig coming out of Sarah’s vag, and he’d have some bullshit theory for how it isn’t real.

Comment #179: Ashley Herzog  on  07/06  at  12:23 AM

I demand proof that Malia and Sasha are Obama’s daughters and not adopted. Prove it. Where is the physical evidence that they’re his kids? Chet, tell me why I should believe they’re his.

Comment #180: Ashley Herzog  on  07/06  at  12:36 AM

An audience wouldn’t notice her first contractions any more than they’d notice my menstrual cramps. Not that you have any idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

Comment #181: Ashley Herzog  on  07/06  at  12:40 AM

Where is Amanda? Why isn’t she putting her foot up this dumbass’s rectum?

Comment #182: Ashley Herzog  on  07/06  at  12:48 AM

it is more fun to speculate on who is the real father.  Or maybe speculate as to what went wrong between Andrew Sullivan and Todd Palin to lead to such animosity.

Comment #183: John Rove  on  07/06  at  12:57 AM

Yes, I’m sure Amanda thinks I’m the dumbass, when she wrote a post disproving all the bullshit you’ve spewed on this thread.

Comment #184: Ashley Herzog  on  07/06  at  01:00 AM

Unree, I specifically stated that no, a 2nd pregnancy does not necessarily show more than a 1st something like 200 comments ago.  I showed much more with the 1st, 3.5 years before my 2nd.  Additionally, I knew a women with 8 kids who showed very little with some of the middle ones and the last, but was huge for a couple of others (don’t know about the 1st 3).  My mother was huge with me at 20 and not nearly so much (though definately pregenant) with my youngest brother 19 years later.  Insisting subsequent pregnancies have to show more makes you look like an idiot.  Please stop.

Comment #185: helen w. h.  on  07/06  at  01:06 AM

I don’t see a single piece of “physical evidence” for Malia and Sasha being Barack’s kids.

Prove that they are.

Actually, you know what, fuck you. I’m sure you also believe Sarah Palin has predator drones aimed at your house right now. That’s the extent of your delusional paranoia.

Comment #186: Ashley Herzog  on  07/06  at  01:15 AM

  Please tell me how this is valuable information in determining whether Trigg is Sarah and Todd’s natural child, or Trigg is Sarah and Todd’s adopted child.

Because I’ve read my Bayes, and you apparently dropped out of logic halfway through.
Comment #245: Chet on 07/05 at 11:21 PM

I understand Bayes.  Please explain in detail how you think he’s going to help you here. 

I mean, first, you seem to be assuming “didn’t show me the BC” means “doesn’t have a BC” or “has a BC with ‘wrong’ names on it.”  Rather than “reacts hyper-defensively to normal questions.”

Second, you’re probably thinking something like “99 percent of BC have the bio parents’ names on it” therefore if there’s a BC, it’s 99 percent certain that the child is theirs biologically.

However, “99 percent of adopted children whose parents don’t want anyone to know the child is adopted, and have the legal right to have the BC altered, and have the money to pay the fee to have it altered, have a BC with the adoptive parents’ names on it” is probably also correct.  It’s all in knowing what to apply your probabilities to.

You’d put the Palins in that “wouldn’t want anyone to know the child is adopted etcetera” camp, no?

(BTW I checked to make sure—if they adopted him in Alaska, then they’d be able to get an altered BC.  Alaska adoption rules here.)

So why would there be no BC with their name on it?  Do you really think there is a nonzero chance that Todd and Sarah Palin have a child for which they don’t have a birth certificate?  Why?  Not showing it to you or the media only means they don’t want to share that information. 

You already believe Palin is irrational.  Why assume it’s because of some rational fear like having an adoption exposed, if it’s actually possible to hide the adoption legally with an altered, state-sanctioned BC?  If she hadn’t already done it, she could get it fixed and the BC would have NO CLUES on it to make anyone think it’s not representing the birth parents.

I’m tired of having you ignore what I’ve asked you, over and over.  If you’re not willing to answer my questions I’m going to just let you wallow in your irrationality.

Comment #187: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  01:16 AM

Chet:  “Nothing but the argumentum ad hominem”

You’re the one who keeps calling people “idiot.”  I’m done.

Comment #188: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  01:19 AM

“Most people with birth certificates are the natural born children of their parents. Therefore, if Trig Palin has a birth certificate, he’s likely the natural born child of his nominal parents.”

Fine.  Ignore where I wrote that most people who were adopted by people who don’t want anyone to know they were adopted, and have the legal right to have the BC changed, and have the money to do so, have birth certificates where their adopted parents are listed as the birth parents.

Ignore where I asked why you think Sarah and Todd Palin would fail to do this.  If they were poor, if they lived somewhere it was impossible to get an ABC, if they didn’t care whether people knew Trigg was adopted, that might explain why, but that’s not true of the first two, and I think your thesis would insist that the third is false as well.

Explain under what circumstances they would not have an ABC for Trigg listing Sarah and Todd Palin as his parents.  Come on, give us something credible.

Comment #189: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  01:31 AM

AnglScarlett : I don’t think there’s any legal requirement for candidates to release any medical records. Personally, I think there _should_ be, as the voters have a right to know whether a prospective president is likely to keel over or have a mental breakdown, but I’m fairly certain there isn’t.

Chet: The logic is that it’s immanently more reasonable than her fictitious, medically impossible, completely unsubstantiated superbirth.

Has it occurred to you that if she _was_ trying for a miscarriage, OF COURSE she’s be skinny, as she’d have been starving herself? Also an unsubstantiated allegation, but one that makes a hell of a lot more sense than yours.

Comment #190: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  01:49 AM

265 and growing comments on this and only 20-something for Jesse’s great parody of Kathleen Parker? Well, sex and gossip have always sold well. smile

Comment #191: Theron  on  07/06  at  02:03 AM

If anyone is still interested, I have written a lengthy, link-filled, photo-illustrated response to this post.

I have been researching and reading about this strange “Babygate” story for nearly two years; I never wrote about it prior to last week.  I felt it was time to share what I believed to be true, based on medical facts, and on what I have been able to confirm as factual record regarding Palin and the general practitioner she alleges delivered Trig (in Florida, ob’s refer 40-something pregnant women with high-risk babies, i.e. Down, to specialists: high risk obsetricians.  I know of no GP who would deliver a premature baby from a high-risk mother.)  But anyway…

And as an aside to the many here who state a birth certificate would not prove anything, I have to say, yes it would.

It would state the names of the mother and father of the child, not indicating whether they were the birth parents or the adoptive parents, and, here’s the thing, it would state the date on which the child was indeed born regardless of his biological mother’s identity.

The date on which Trig was born is key to cracking open just about all the other deceptions Palin has perpetrated.  The deception about the flight and the delivery at the small regional hospital that, I’ve confirmed, is not equipped for special needs infants, preemies, or even multiples.  And, the deception that Sarah Palin herself delivered the infant.  If the birth date is not 4/18/2008, but another date, and Palin, on that day, was somewhere other than Alaksa, there goes that lie.

As to the issue of medical records released, per tradition, by three of the four presidential/vice-presidential candidates (Obama, Biden, and McCain) but not Palin, one has to wonder (note: I said *wonder*, not claim) if there is, perchance, something on those records that would preclude her being Trig’s mother, such as a tubal ligation after her fourth child (something many of my forty-something friends had performed after their last babies; in our case, we opted for a vasectomy).  It could be that—surgical sterilzation—or a complete lack of birth-related records pertaining to Trig, the entire pregnancy story of whom is riven with ridiculous lies (sneaking in the back door of the amnio place, driving herself home after the amnio—er, on what planet?—and so on.)

Comment #192: litbrit  on  07/06  at  02:07 AM

Well, ok. Prove what an idiotic nutter I am. What’s even one piece of evidence that Sarah Palin’s claim of maternity to Trig Palin is true?

If you need proof of what an idiotic nutter you are, you need look no further than your own words in the comments here, tinfoil hat man.

Comment #193: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  02:08 AM

  Ignore where I asked why you think Sarah and Todd Palin would fail to do this.

Who cares why? The question is, did they? If so, let’s see the birth certificate.

I care why.  Because if there’s no reason to falsify, then I can easily ascribe their unwillingness to provide documentation as either a desire for privacy or their usual defensive silliness about any question raised to them no matter how banal.

If you’re saying that adoptive birth certificates make it impossible to know who was born to who, well, no court sees it that way.

An ABC is the official BC.  You would have to get a court order to get the real BC.  Ask thousands of adoptive children who can’t find out who their birth parents are.  “I am the child and I want to know” isn’t enough of a reason.  It’s not impossible, but it’s damned difficult.

  Explain under what circumstances they would not have an ABC for Trigg listing Sarah and Todd Palin as his parents.

What on Earth does that matter?

Because for your story to make sense, the actions have to make sense.

I could otherwise say that, since you haven’t posted your birth certificate, you’re clearly the spawn of Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe.

Seriously, you’re way more into this than I am. And how does any of what you’ve asked substantiate Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity?
Comment #269: Chet on 07/06 at 01:16 AM

It doesn’t.  How does anything you’ve said prove it’s inaccurate?

If you start from the presumption that nothing is true until proven, you’re going to have a tough life.  Are you really “Chet”?  Did you really post all these posts, or did someone post some of them?  Is this really Pandagon, or some site set up to mirror it and spread pro-Palin propaganda? 

Without using the test of reasonability, the possibilities are endless, and maddening.

Comment #194: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  02:34 AM

Has it occurred to you that if she _was_ trying for a miscarriage, OF COURSE she’s be skinny, as she’d have been starving herself?

Gosh, that’s an ugly thought. Believable, but ugly.

More OT - Apparently Chet doesn’t grok that most people exaggerate important personal stories or that memory is notoriously fallible. By now Palin probably believes that she flew ~10 hrs while in active labour then gave birth in a tornado and walked 30 miles to and fro the hospital, uphill both ways in 27 feet of snow. Doesn’t mean she didn’t give birth. Geez.

Comment #195: KristinMH  on  07/06  at  02:37 AM

No other woman on the planet was videotaped delivering an address to the Governor’s Union - supposedly in the throes of labor - in the morning and then was verified to travel a thousand miles in ten hours to deliver in Wasilla, when Dallas had a perfectly acceptable neonatal unit. One of the best units, in fact, for delivering premee Down’s syndrome babies.

Again, Chet, you seem to be very confused about the difference between labor and active labor.  A woman can be “in labor” for several days.  Labor can stop and start.  It’s not a singular incident.

Oh, and Alaska Airlines does not, in fact, have a policy against pregnant women flying at any point in their pregnancy, as you would know if you had actually bothered to read any of the articles I linked you to.  The FAA has no policy against pregnant passengers flying—the FAA only regulates pregnant pilots, not passengers.  All of the regulations about pregnant passengers are airline regulations, not federal regulations.

Again, you don’t know these extremely basic facts that we have spoonfed to you multiple times and we’re supposed to accept you as some kind of expert because you know how to scream, “Show me the birth certificate!”?  Even though you admit that the birth certificate won’t prove anything, either, because an adoptive certificate would still list Sarah and Todd as the biological parents?

At this point, the space alien hypothesis is more rational than anything you’ve provided here.

Comment #196: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  02:37 AM

Sarah Palin is a fucking house when she’s pregnant, and Trig was a fairly heavy infant for 8 months, like a lot of Down’s syndrome infants. Starving herself? There’s no way she could starve herself to normality at 8 months, and still maintain consciousness.

Some things just aren’t medically possible.
Comment #270: Chet on 07/06 at 01:18 AM

You’re a doctor, right?

http://community.babycentre.co.uk/post/a7201005/does_small_bump_small_baby

“My friend was tiny all the way through and last tuesday she gave birth to a 10lb3oz bsby boy, just 2 days overdue!! “

“my last shocked me when they plonked her on me first thing i said was omg shes huge id had a very neat bump didnt look that big and had her day aft she was due she came out all plumpy and weighed 8 pounds 12 and a hlf ounces!”

“My baby was nearly 8lb and 54cm long - dont know where she was hiding!”

Comment #197: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  02:46 AM

  I could otherwise say that, since you haven’t posted your birth certificate, you’re clearly the spawn of Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe.

You’re free to say that, and you’re free to reap the consequences saying that would have on your credibility. Of course, one element of evidence against your view is that I was born long after either of them was dead.
Comment #275: Chet on 07/06 at 01:45 AM

Prove it.

Comment #198: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  02:51 AM

Litbrit: As to the issue of medical records released, per tradition, by three of the four presidential/vice-presidential candidates

It doesn’t count as a tradition if this last election cycle was the first time it ever happened. Even on Barrayar, something has to happen twice to become traditional.

Chet: I have not read a commentator more impervious to reason than you since I quit perusing the Fortean Times forums.

Comment #199: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  03:08 AM

Because for your story to make sense, the actions have to make sense.

Oh, Chet is well beyond that point.  He actually prefers that his story make no sense whatsoever because it’s easier for him to cling to it. After all, if the story he’s pushing wasn’t completely insane and illogical, he wouldn’t be able to claim that it must be true because there’s no way someone could make up such a crazy story.

I don’t know why this only just occurred to me, but there’s another perfectly logical explanation for why Bristol disappeared for five months, especially given that her babydaddy’s mother was arrested for selling drugs soon after the election:  in-patient rehab, anyone?  That would motivate most parents to claim that their precious little angel was at home with mono for five months, even if they weren’t conservative elected officials.

Comment #200: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  03:08 AM

Chet:That’s not an evidence-based way to examine the issue.

And presenting wild surmise as fact, then demanding that everyone else disprove it is? The onus of presenting proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. In this context, you. You haven’t presented any evidence, you’ve just claimed that the “official” story is too implausible to be true. Then you’ve declared that the other, plausible alternatives (to whit, there was no early labor, she had a scheduled induction) to be even more impossible. This is not a good way to win an argument. I suspect soon, everyone will start ignoring you, and you will declare victory. This won’t actually make you a winner.

Comment #201: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  03:18 AM

Well, you’re demonstrably in error:

Only if by “demonstrably in error” you mean “actually bothered to look up Alaska Airlines’ policy” and “read the FAA guidelines that the airlines are not required to follow.”  You did notice that those were guidelines and not regulations that you linked to, right?

No, Mnem, you’re supposed to stop making shit up, like unnamed unspecified witnesses upon whose hypothetical testimony we’re supposed to corroborate claims about hypothetical wristbands.

Good to know that Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson now counts as a mere “unnamed unspecified witness.”

Sorry, dude, but you’ve cornered the market on tinfoil here.  If you don’t want people realizing that you’re making crazy accusations with no proof, maybe you should try to build a more logical case than “show me the birth certificate!”

Comment #202: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  03:19 AM

I’ve simply challenged you to provide evidence that substantiates Palin’s story. You’ve been comically unable to do so, and wrong about nearly every “fact” you’ve put forth.

Now you’re just sad.  I found you the name of the actual doctor who delivered Trig, I showed you the contemporary articles with Palin’s claim that she was not in active labor, and I linked you to the actual policy of Alaska Airlines regarding pregnant passengers and I’m the one who’s been wrong about everything?  I haven’t provided you with any evidence at all that Palin was pregnant and gave birth to Trig?

Again, your definition of “evidence” is not from this planet.  You can use statements made to newspapers as evidence in a court of law here on Earth, but apparently not on your home world of Planet Insanity.

Comment #203: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  03:25 AM

Helen w.h. @257, I never said that.  You’ve mixed me up with one of the many other commenters here.  I didn’t say that women who show a lot with pregnancy #1 will necessarily show even more at pregnancy #5 or #7 or whatever.  I said we know Sarah Palin in the past showed a lot.  Didn’t say that was proof she didn’t bear Trig, but it’s on point.

Whether you like Chet’s style of argument or not (I mostly do), you have to admit Palin’s labor-and-delivery story is odd and improbable.  It could be true, but I think it’s more likely to be it’s false.  litbrit @267 gives a plausible read.

Comment #204: Unree  on  07/06  at  03:27 AM

So prove me wrong. Show me even one piece of evidence that corroborates Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity. Do you even know of any? Or did you just hear from someone else, Mnem and her space aliens maybe, that there was some?

No.

You are free to blather whatever black helicopter nuttery regarding Trig Palin’s parentage that you want.  If I really believed that there was any evidence I could show you that would get you to retract your hyperventilating delusions, I would do so.

But you are clearly too far gone, in light of the seemingly endless comments you have made in this thread to try to defend your position on this topic.

Even if I could present you with video of Trig literally emerging from Sarah Palin’s vagina, you would claim that it was doctored footage.  There comes a point in time when continuing an argument with a delusional conspiracy theorist such as yourself becomes an utter waste of time for the rational individuals who are attempting to pull you back into reality.

So I will not make any effort to try to convince you of how foolish you look making a ridiculous claim that isn’t conclusively supported by any hard evidence.  I imagine greater than 90% of the population accepts the fact that Trig Palin was born to Sarah Palin.  But you are not among that group.

Fine.  Go on believing your idiotic conspiracy theories.  Go on screeching your absurd contentions about a subject that 99.9% of the world doesn’t give two shits about at this point.

Go earn yourself that Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism by publishing the explosive expose on the cover-up of Trig Palin’s “real” mother.

And of course, if that doesn’t work out, you could always apply for a job at News of the World.  I’m sure you would fit in well with that publication.

But as far as me debating you further on the issue of Trig Palin’s parentage, I’m done.  It’s a waste of my time.

Comment #205: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  03:27 AM

If Palin was actually pregnant she would have needed to show a signed permission form from her doctor in order to board. Why didn’t any of the flight personnel see it?

And of COURSE the flight crew would have insisted on following the letter of the rules with a passenger who was rich and politically powerful. Just like no doctor EVER bent the rules for an influential patient.

Comment #206: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  03:41 AM

Chet,

How about this.  Let’s have a little quid pro quo.  I’ll provide absolute proof of the fact that Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig Palin once you provide absolute proof to me that you have never raped a women in your lifetime.  And since most rapists don’t acknowledge that they are rapists, I’m afraid that you merely saying that you haven’t raped any women does not constitute proof that you are in fact, not a rapist.

So come on, prove to me that you aren’t a rapist.  Because until you do, I’m gonna continue to argue that you actually are a rapist.

Comment #207: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  03:43 AM

I suspect soon, everyone will start ignoring you, and you will declare victory.

My favorite part of the conspiracy so far is “but the lighting shows she’s not pregnant!”  That’s how people have “proved” for years that the moon landing never happened.

I’m guessing that Chet believes that conspiracy, too.  After all, all of the proof we have that Americans went to the moon is in the testimony of the people who went there, and they’re probably all liars anyway, so we can discount everything they say.  We don’t know the names of every single person who was in the Mission Control room during the “landing,” so they’re just unnamed, unspecified witnesses who probably don’t even exist.  The pictures are easily faked, so we can discard those, too.  The actual rocket ships?  All fakes.  Special effects.

By the way, Chet, since you’re an expert, how many months pregnant is Chrissie Hynde in this video?  Also, please let us know how far gone Julia Louis Dreyfus was in this episode of “Seinfeld.”

Comment #208: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  03:54 AM

I’ll provide absolute proof of the fact that Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig Palin once you provide absolute proof to me that you have never raped a women in your lifetime.

What evidence do you have that I’ve ever committed rape? Please be specific.

There you go, changing the rules.

You make a claim that you cannot prove, people try to tell you that you are wrong, and then you demand that they prove you wrong, despite not having provided any conclusive evidence yourself that your claim is right.

So now I am going to make a claim that I cannot prove, you will try to tell me that I am wrong, but until you actually prove to me that you aren’t a rapist, I’m gonna continue to argue that you are a rapist.

If you don’t have to prove that Trig Palin isn’t the son of Sarah Palin, then I don’t have to prove that you are a rapist.

You have put the honus on others to prove their claim that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin’s mother, and now I’m putting the honus on you to prove your claim that you aren’t a rapist.  Until you submit proof that you aren’t a rapist, I will maintain my claim that you are a rapist.

See how that works?

I’m just playing by your rules, rapist.

Comment #209: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  03:59 AM

The idea that I can’t carry on 2 ounces of toothpaste, but Sarah Palin can sneak on 8 pounds of baby with nobody noticing is totally retarded. What the fuck is wrong with you?

The fact that, unlike you, I am aware that the TSA and the FAA are two different agencies? 

Again, I showed you that (a) the FAA has guidelines, not hard-and-fast regulations, that leave it up to the airline to decide which disabled persons (including pregnant women) are fit to fly and (b) Alaska Airlines has no set policy and all you can say is that there’s something wrong with me?  Why are you angry because I actually looked into the matter and determined the facts instead of claiming that the TSA would, like, totally prevent her from getting on the plane because they don’t allow toothpaste?

If Palin was actually pregnant she would have needed to show a signed permission form from her doctor in order to board. Why didn’t any of the flight personnel see it?

Well, as you keep trying to ignore, Alaska Airlines does not actually have a set policy.  Here’s a table showing all of the airlines’ policies.  Note that Alaska’s says “no restrictions” for both domestic and international travel.  Go ahead and call their 800 number if you don’t believe me.

I’m not sure where your “signed permission form” thing came from, because it’s not from Alaska Airlines.  The FAA suggests that airlines get one to protect themselves from lawsuits and other hassles but, again, it’s not a regulation and airlines are not required to do it.

Not only that, but neither the airlines nor the TSA do an ultrasound of every female passenger to figure out whether or not she’s pregnant before she gets on board.  They work on the assumption that passengers will act in good faith and tell them about medical issues before they board.  If Palin decided to not inform them that she was pregnant so there wouldn’t be any hassle, how exactly is that Proof Positive that she wasn’t pregnant at all?  If anything, it’s Proof Positive that she’s an arrogant asshole who thinks the rules are for little people, so she decided to bypass them.

Comment #210: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:10 AM

Please explain how an episode of a fictional TV show substantiates Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity of Trig Palin. Be specific.

You’re claiming that you can look at videos of a woman and say definitively how many months pregnant she is, and that’s how you know Sarah Palin is not Trig’s biological mother.  I’m asking you to demonstrate this amazing ability for us.  I didn’t cheat, by the way—Chrissie Hynde and Julia Louis Dreyfus are both confirmed to have been pregnant in both of those clips.  So all you have to do, Kreskin, is use your powers to tell us how far along they are since you’ve already claimed you know by looking at pictures of Palin that she wasn’t pregnant when she claimed to be.

Comment #211: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:14 AM

Please explain how an episode of a fictional TV show substantiates Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity of Trig Palin. Be specific.

Easy.  The linked videos provide evidence that it is possible for a (real, completely non-fictional even if she’s acting in a fictional TV show) woman to be pregnant without appearing to be.  Some women don’t even know that they’re pregnant until they give birth.  There’s a TV show about it called “I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant.” On the other hand, while I’ve never been pregnant, I have been asked when the baby’s due (oh to be a fat woman in our society)!  To recap: women you think look pregnant might not be, and women you think don’t look pregnant might be.  Therefore, you’re claims of, “But she doesn’t look pregnant!” don’t actually provide any evidence that she was not pregnant.

Comment #212: didntmeantolaugh  on  07/06  at  04:16 AM

the point is that they didn’t even know she was pregnant. They’ve said so.

Prove that they aren’t lying.

Comment #213: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:18 AM

Wrong again, stupid.

You provided a list of 15 names from Wikipedia.  This picture shows more than 15 people in the Mission Control room during the landing.  Where are the rest of them?  Why don’t you have their names?  What are you trying to hide by concealing the names of everyone else in the room, Chet?  Isn’t this proof that the moon landing never happened since you can only come up with a few names out of the dozens of people who supposedly witnessed the landing?

Comment #214: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:19 AM

Please explain how you telling me that you are not a rapist substantiates your claim that you are not a rapist.

The bulk of your argument regarding Trig Palin rests on your claim that Sarah Palin always lies.  Most will agree that she does in fact lie a lot.  But the fact that she lies a lot doesn’t prove that she is lying about being Trig Palin’s mother.

You say that literally everything that she has ever said is a lie.  If someone asked her, “Were you ever the governor of Alaska?” and she responds, “Yes”, is she lying?

I mean, saying that literally EVERYTHING she says is a lie means that everything she says is a lie, right?  There’s no room for ambiguity there.  If she says that her hair is brunette, is she lying?  If she claims that her husband’s name is Todd Palin, is that a lie?  Everything means everything.  If everything she says is a lie, then she can never possibly say anything truthful.  I could visit Anchorage in December and the ground could be covered with white, fluffy precipitation, but if she goes on the air and talks about all of the pretty snow in Alaska that day, then the truth must be that what I am looking at isn’t actually snow, even though I really thought it was.  Since Palin claimed that it is snow, it therefore cannot be snow.  Because everything she says is a lie.

Comment #215: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  04:21 AM

Prove that they aren’t lying.

Sorry, buddy. Your positive claim, your burden of proof.

When are you going to prove that you aren’t a rapist?

Comment #216: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  04:24 AM

Your positive claim, your burden of proof.

No, you’re claiming they’re telling the truth. Unless you can prove it, we have no reason to believe them. Boy, this is a fun game!

Comment #217: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:25 AM

Chet, as someone who sides with you here, I think Mnemosyne wins the Alaska Airlines round.  The airline does not *have* to bar pregnant women from flying.  Why would AA personnel want to mess with the governor, whom they probably all recognized?  It would make sense that they’d say they didn’t think she looked pregnant, in case anyone from the FAA was watching. 

But Mnem ... Cathy Baldwin-Johnson?  Not even an obstetrician.  Imagine you’re the governor. You know you’re having a Down Syndrome baby and after that long legendary flight from Texas you drive past the best hospital in the state to give birth in Wasilla, with a family physician attending rather than an OB/GYN?  Again, possible but not probable.

Comment #218: Unree  on  07/06  at  04:26 AM

Chet: I don’t believe you actually read my comment. I think you just quoted it and replied at random. The onus if proof is on you now. Suitable evidence might be a time-stamped video clip of you reading it out loud. Post that clip now, or I refuse to believe you read my last comment!

Comment #219: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:29 AM

Alaska Airlines isn’t the only airline she flew that month.

It’s the airline she flew from Texas to Alaska on the day in question.  It’s the one that you’re claiming should have stopped her from flying if she was pregnant.

Don’t try and weasel out of it now that you’ve been caught.  You’ve been claiming that the fact that the airline that she flew from Texas to Alaska didn’t demand documentation is proof that she wasn’t pregnant.  I’ve shown you that Alaska Airlines does not require documentation.  Are you still going to stand by your claim that the fact that Palin didn’t show a doctor’s note is proof that she was not pregnant?

Stop working so hard to disprove the “nay” side of the equation - which is almost nothing, to be honest - and start trying to prove the “yea” side. What’s even one piece of evidence to substantiate her claim?

Why?  I’m making the unremarkable claim that a woman in her 40s announced that she was pregnant, gave birth to a Down Syndrome baby, and gave several interviews about it within a few days of the birth.  You’re making the fantastical claim that the entire thing is a sham, she was never pregnant, and her baby is really the secret child of an unknown, anonymous Alaskan woman in her 40s who just happened to have a Down Syndrome baby that Palin wanted to secretly adopt as her own.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.  You are making an extraordinary claim and trying to say that those of us who don’t believe your extraordinary claim have to prove you wrong.  I guess the next time someone comes in here claiming that Jesus really rose from his tomb three days after he died, you’re going to be on their side because, after all, we can’t prove it didn’t happen any more than we can prove that Palin didn’t secretly adopt Trig from an unknown woman.

Comment #220: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:29 AM

The only claim I’m making is that there’s no evidence substantiating Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity of Trig.

OK, well, in that case, I will now claim that there is no evidence that Malia and Sasha Obama are the children of Barack and Michelle Obama.

Now you need to prove my claim wrong.  If you tell me they have birth certificates, I need you to prove that they have birth certificates.  You need to obtain a physical copy of those birth certificates and show them to me.  And when you show them to me, you need to prove that they haven’t been altered or forges with Photoshop.

Until you can do those things, you have not proven that they are in fact the children of the president and the first lady.

Comment #221: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  04:30 AM

Mnemosyne : we also can’t prove that Chet is really a human being. Chat-bots are very advanced these days. I demand he provide evidence of his humanity! If he can’t do that, how can we take anything he says about Homo Sapiens seriously?

Comment #222: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:36 AM

But Mnem ... Cathy Baldwin-Johnson?  Not even an obstetrician.

So?  Not every baby is delivered by an obstetrician.  In fact, you’ll get bashed pretty hard by some of the posters here if you even hint that there’s something wrong with having your baby delivered by anyone other than an obstetrician.  A patient gets to make her own care decisions and no one could force Palin to use a different doctor or deliver at a different hospital if she refused to do it.  (Well, they could force her if she was poor and/or a minority, but they’re not going to get a court order on the Governor of Alaska.)

Having the baby delivered by the same family practice doctor who delivered Palin’s other children isn’t proof that Palin was never pregnant.  It’s proof that Palin doesn’t have very good judgment and assesses risk badly.  Not the same thing.

Comment #223: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:36 AM

It doesn’t matter to me whether Chet is a human being.  Bot or person, he’s making plenty of sense on this thread.

Comment #224: Unree  on  07/06  at  04:38 AM

Why not just admit you don’t know what “positive claim” means, guys?

Is there a difference in a court of law between evidence and a positive claim?  If so, please explain it.  If you’re asking for proof of evidence beyond what would be accepted by a court of law, what’s your rationale?

Comment #225: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:41 AM

Unree: You’re just saying that because you’re a Reptoid.

Comment #226: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:42 AM

Chet: And by not addressing my skeptical doubts about your personhood, you’ve conceded your artificial nature.

Comment #227: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:44 AM

Your positive claim, your burden of proof. What’s your evidence?

Wanna play the semantics game?  OK.

There is absolutely no evidence that your erect penis is more than one inch in length.

That’s a negative claim.

You can either accept my claim without dispute, or you can argue that your erect penis is in fact more than one inch in length.

But unless you provide proof that your claim is true, I will continue to argue that there is no evidence of your penis being more than one inch long when erect, and my contention will be right.

You must now provide me with concrete evidence that your erect penis is more than one inch in length, and merely saying so is not evidence.

Got it, short-short man?

Comment #228: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  04:47 AM

Jesus, you really are stupid, Mnem. Here, let me Google that for you.

Gosh, you took me to a whole page of Google cites, none of which had a full list of everyone who was in the Mission Control room that night despite your claim that an entire page of Google cites was somehow proof that you could show me the name of every person in that room, or at least the names of every person in the photograph I provided you.  That sure proves you right!

Look, I can Google a whole page of cites for you, too!  That must prove I’m right and the Apollo landing was a hoax, right?  I have Google cites that say so!

I’m getting the feeling that even when you deign to define a “positive claim,” it’s going to be your Planet Insanity definition and not the definition that actual people use in actual reality.  And when we point that out, you’re just going to huff and whine some more about how stoooopid we all are for not accepting your personal definitions of things.

Comment #229: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:48 AM

Chet: The fact that you haven’t posted video links, of course. Without them, why should anyone believe that someone with such a fragile grasp of human reasoning as you, was in fact human?

Comment #230: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  04:49 AM

Having the baby delivered by the same family practice doctor who delivered Palin’s other children isn’t proof that Palin was never pregnant.

Right, but did Baldwin-Johnson deliver any of the other children?  Possibly, because B-J’s family practice was up and running by the mid-80s, but why?  I found no info one way or the other.  Then again my google-fu isn’t as good as yours….

Comment #231: Unree  on  07/06  at  04:55 AM

That which would satisfy the court is well in abundance of what I’m asking for, or has been presented in this thread.

Newspaper accounts are admissible in a court of law under the rules of evidence.  Despite that, you’re claiming that we can’t use contemporary newspaper accounts as evidence for anything because shut up, that’s why.  We can only present proofs that you personally have deemed worthy of consideration.

You are asking for extraordinary proof beyond what a court of law would require and insisting that anything that doesn’t meet your personal standards of proof doesn’t count as evidence at all.  Again, this must be the court ruling from Planet Insanity since it bears no resemblance to how things work here on Earth.

Comment #232: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  04:57 AM

Right, but did Baldwin-Johnson deliver any of the other children?  Possibly, because B-J’s family practice was up and running by the mid-80s, but why?

It’s in one of the articles from Anchorage that I linked to above.  Again, a lot of people don’t have their babies delivered by OB/GYNs, especially if they’re uncomplicated pregnancies, so I’m not getting how it’s somehow proof that Palin was never pregnant.  After four previous deliveries with her, Palin may just have felt comfortable with that doctor and preferred to see her for a fifth time rather than get a new doctor even though it was a high-risk pregnancy.

Comment #233: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  05:03 AM

Unree: You’re just saying that because you’re a Reptoid.

True dat.  Or could be true.  But what does it matter?  I, or the persona known as Unree, am so happy to have this issue aired someplace that isn’t Sullivan’s blog or one of the liberal feminist spaces that rule it out of bounds.  At home my boyfriend refuses to discuss it, and most of my friends think I am wrong.

Comment #234: Unree  on  07/06  at  05:04 AM

Again, Mnem, the principle here is that telling the same lie twice doesn’t corroborate it.

So this appears to be your argument:

You’ve decided that Sarah Palin is lying and she was never pregnant.  If she has other people state that she actually was pregnant—such as, say, the doctor who says she delivered the baby that you don’t believe exists—to you that’s a continuation of the original lie and not proof that Palin was, in fact, pregnant since there’s now a second person supporting her claim.

I’m guessing that pointing out for about the hundredth time that reality doesn’t operate like that and that having a witness to something is generally considered to be a point in a claim’s favor and not proof positive that the claim is false isn’t going to budge you since you’ve gotten it fixed in your head that anyone who supports Palin’s claim is automatically lying themselves because you say so, damn it.

Comment #235: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  05:09 AM

Mnemosyne, I went back to the top and clicked on your links.  A few were from adn.com, but I didn’t see any identifying Dr. Baldwin-Johnson as the doctor who delivered the other Palin children.  Again, I may be misreading.

Comment #236: Unree  on  07/06  at  05:15 AM

The Palin conspiracy theory seems tailor-made to rob liberals of our moral authority against nutty right wing conspiracy theories.  It allows false equivalence to sneak in—-both sides have their Birthers!  It deprives people of the ability to concoct genuinely interesting analysis grounded in reality.  It’s a waste of time and energy. 

That is so true. Thank you for this post Amanda, even independently of debunking a myth (which is always useful, and in this case in particular reminds us of a few pregnancy facts, like that they vary a lot) it will be really important down the line to be able to link to this post (and others, I think Obsidian Wings posted on this subject too some time ago) and say “actually yes, liberals did speak up against the Trig birther conspiracy theories”.

Comment #237: Caravelle  on  07/06  at  05:17 AM

I’m hoping for Chet’s sake he’s a bot; it’d be a pretty smart bot (despite whatever bug makes it use the word “stupid” at least twice a comment) but a piss poor excuse for a human, what with failing the Turing test and all… :D

Comment #238: Bagelsan  on  07/06  at  05:17 AM

No, there’s the word of Barack and Michelle Obama, who are not lying liars who have long sense abandoned all credibility.

It’s not a lot but it’s well more than Sarah Palin has.

Provide concrete evidence that they aren’t lying liars.  And while Sarah Palin’s credibility on almost any political issue is highly suspect, when in the past has she lied about the parentage of any of her children?

Your contention is that because she has lied about other things, therefore she is probably lying about this.

That’s pretty weak, and certainly wouldn’t prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt in a courtroom.

Your argument is that we cannot prove conclusively that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin’s mother.  Well, you got me.  I simply don’t care enough about refuting your claim to attempt to dig up the proof that you seek.  Maybe I’m naive for accepting that generally when a person says that they are the mother of a child, and when everyone around that person acknowledges that person is the mother, odds are, the person claiming to be someone’s mother is probably really their mother.

But no, it isn’t absolute proof.

I have never seen irrefutable proof that any child of any politician is in fact their child.  I just accept it, much like I accept the claim that my neighbor works for a brewery, even though I’ve never verified that by following him to his work to prove that he isn’t making it up.

The whole premise of your argument relies on your claim that because she lies in other areas, she is probably lying about this.

I may not have whatever proof it is you think you need to believe that Sarah Palin is Trig’s mother, but at the same time, you have absolutely no proof that she isn’t.  The fact that she lies a lot doesn’t prove that she is lying about this.  The fact that her stomach wasn’t as big as you think it should have been isn’t proof that she wasn’t pregnant.

There’s not gonna be any consensus on this subject.  And while it appears that no one has succeeded in convincing you of Sarah’s maternity with Trig, I don’t think your claims have changed many minds to view it as you do, either.  I, and most people, believe that Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig Palin.  I don’t personally have access to anything that would absolutely prove my belief, but that does not mean that such proof does not exist.  You, on the other hand, are convinced that Sarah Palin is NOT the mother of Trig Palin.  And while you’ve pointed at several things that you believe back up your claim, you have yet to provide any sort of definitive proof that Palin’s claim is false.  There is no absolute irrefutable evidence that Sarah Palin is NOT Trig’s mother.

So, go ahead and think whatever you want to think.  The reality is, you will probably never be given whatever sort of proof you think you need to believe Palin about this.  Fine.  But your disbelief is not going to have any impact on anything.  Bible Spice will continue to pile up wads of cash giving bizarre nonsensical word salad speeches, progressives will continue to poke fun of her, conservatives will continue to try to defend her idiocy, and life will go on.  The generally accepted story in the public will always be that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin’s baby.  Most people just accept that as a fact, even though almost nobody can provide the absolute proof you desire.

Maybe we are all wrong and you and the relatively miniscule group of people who agree with you are right, but in the end, what difference does any of it make?

99.99999% of the world doesn’t give a leaping shit about this issue at this point.  I will happily trade being left into the dark for eternity without absolute confirmation of Trig’s birth by Sarah for a Democratic-controlled government that quits allowing idiotic debates like this one to stagnate efforts at real progress, and starts to bring about the fundamental changes this country so desperately needs right now.

Comment #239: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  05:19 AM

or one of the liberal feminist spaces that rule it out of bounds.  At home my boyfriend refuses to discuss it, and most of my friends think I am wrong.

Urm, just saying—when my internet friends, my RL friends, and my loved ones think I’m off my rocker, odds are they’re right…

Comment #240: Bagelsan  on  07/06  at  05:20 AM

Unree, it’s this link, the second of the two, that has the doctor’s name and several quotes from her detailing the story.

Note also in this same story that, despite Chet’s claims, the Alaska Airlines personnel never say they didn’t think she was pregnant.  They said, “The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress.”

Comment #241: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  05:27 AM

Clarification:  the story I linked to says definitely that Willow Palin (the second youngest) was delivered by Dr. Baldwin-Johnson, but isn’t clear about the others.  So the evidence is that there was an existing doctor-patient relationship between Palin and Baldwin-Johnson prior to Trig’s birth and that Baldwin-Johnson delivered at least one of Palin’s children prior to Trig.

Comment #242: Mnemosyne  on  07/06  at  05:33 AM

So what’s even one piece of evidence that supports Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity?

What’s even one piece of evidence that supports Michelle Obama’s claim to maternity of Sasha Obama?

All you’ve provided is the contention that Barack and Michelle are not lying liars, but even people who almost always tell the truth have lied at some point in their lives, right?  Have you ever met a single human being that has literally never once lied about anything, ever (no, infants who die before they have the ability to speak don’t count)?  The fact that they seem to have been truthful in most other areas is not definitive proof that they are being truthful about this.  Just as the fact that Sarah Palin appears to be dishonest in most other areas is not proof that she is lying about her claim to be Trig’s mother.

1) The average housecat weighs roughly 7,000,000 lbs. at birth.

2) 17 + 12 = 3.65874

3) Herbert Hoover declared America’s independence from Greece in 1997, and then dropped a nuclear bomb on their asses.

4) Wine is made from fermented grapes.

The first three statements are lies.  They are lies not only because they are factually incorrect, but also because I am personally aware that they are incorrect.  The fourth statement is truthful.  But, according to your logic, a person who is found to be lying frequently can never tell the truth about anything.  So even though you and I both know the fourth statement to be true, you cannot accept it as true since every statement I made prior to the last one was a lie.

Their track record of perceived honesty proves nothing more than the fact that they seem to be honest most of the time.  It doesn’t prove that they are always honest and never lie, just that far more often than not, what they say appears to be true.  But what if this one particular claim - that Sasha is their biological daughter - is one of those very rare instances in which they are lying?

What concrete irrefutable proof do you have that Barack and Michelle’s claim to be the biological parents of Sasha Obama is true?

Comment #243: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  05:43 AM

One other thing… it has been suggested that people should maintain a sense of skepticism on this issue.

Well, I am skeptical.  I am skeptical of the belief that Sarah Palin is not Trig Palin’s biological mother.

And the reason why I am skeptical is because if Trig isn’t Palin’s son, then he must therefore be someone else’s son.  Unless Sarah and Todd Palin snuck into a maternity ward at a hospital and stole a baby when nobody was watching, we must assume that there are other people or at least one other person who is aware of the truth.  Perhaps the mother.  Or if an adoption took place without the interaction of the biological mother, than perhaps the case worker or an adoption agency is aware of the truth.

I’d wager that if the contention that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin’s son is true, and there is presumably at least one person who absolutely knows it to be true, then that person would realize the amount of money that secret could reveal.  I have little doubt that the National Enquirer would write a check for a million dollars or more to the person who has hard evidence that Trig Palin is not the biological son of Sarah Palin.  And barring the possibility of the Palins offering the third party person a huge wad of cash to stay quiet, I can’t imagine why that person wouldn’t cash in on the secret.  We’re not talking pocket change here.  We’re talking about a huge, seven-figure sum of money that would allow the third party source in the know to never have to work again.

I’m skeptical about the suggestion that a person unrelated to the Palins who knows the real truth about this matter would willingly sit back and remain silent, when it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that verification of this secret would command a massive payday.

If Trig isn’t who Sarah Palin says he is, then somebody else also knows this, and that somebody isn’t coming forward to collect the shitload of cash this information would garner.  I find it hard to believe that anyone in such a position wouldn’t take the money and run.

Comment #244: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  07:57 AM

[slow, sarcastic golf clap at ridiculous length of the thread]

Comment #245: norbizness  on  07/06  at  09:37 AM

I don’t think you guys realize how deep the rabbit hole this goes. This shows Palin couldn’t possibly have a child, and you know why they would go to that length to hide that fact? Because her vagina is *what they used to smuggle in the explosives that served to do the controlled demolition on the WTC tower*.

It all makes sense now, people.

Comment #246: BlackBloc  on  07/06  at  10:23 AM

so are we doing troofer thread tomorrow?

Comment #247: pharmakos  on  07/06  at  10:40 AM

@norbizness

[slow, sarcastic golf clap at ridiculous length of the thread]

http://xkcd.com/386/

Comment #248: Theron  on  07/06  at  10:41 AM

Yeah, Bagelsan.  My friends actually don’t think I’m off my rocker, AFAIK.  You know, there’s that daylight between mistaken and crazy?  Nah.

Here’s an analogy.  A respected New York Times sports reporter filed a story on July 4th about George Steinbrenner’s 80th birthday.  My IE browser auto-completes “alzheimers” when I type in the old bastard’s name.  The reporter writes nothing about the only possible issue of interest in this human interest story.

You could say it’s none of my business how clear Steinbrenner’s mind is, and you’d be right if you hadn’t just published a story about how he’s doing these days.

Sarah Palin has received a ton of attention from the media.  Yeah, whether someone really is the mother of her announced child doesn’t need reporters’ attention if the story is the tiniest bit plausible, just as reporters can skip the senile dementia angle for most of their subjects.  It’s common sense.  The Palin story is implausible, and reporters who cover her don’t even ask her a round of questions.

Comment #249: Unree  on  07/06  at  10:45 AM

Thanks for this.

Comment #250: Charlie Kilian  on  07/06  at  10:56 AM

I’m stunned that so many people here are saying “what does it matter?” or “it’s only gossip.”

What you don’t seem to understand is that this is not just a massive hoax on Palin’s part.. but that FOR TWO YEARS corporate media has studiously, concertedly, LOOKED THE OTHER WAY while a mentally-ill person, who stuffed a cushion down her pants in order to fake a pregnancy, was mounted as a viable candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the United States, and is still treated as credible by most mainstream news outlets.

Does no one understand that this is the death of the Republic? When virtually all media collude to coverup and deny what is in front of everyone’s faces?

If so-called journalists cannot tell us the truth about Palin’s personality disorder, its concomitant vicious paranoia and vindictiveness, and the extremes to which she has gone to lie, grift and steal (the faked pregnancy is in some ways the least of it.. see www.palingates.blogspot.com) all of which are right out there in the open*. then what ARE they going to be honest with us about? The answer is, NOTHING.

Stick a fork in the USA, because it is done, done, done.


*See even the McCain campaign staff’s own comments, both anonymous and attributed, to the effect that 1.) she had breakdowns and zone-outs including episodes of trashing her own makeup and hair at the last minute, 2.) she could not take direction, and insisted on calling Sen. Biden “Obiden” (because she imagined herself to be debating Obama, imo.. she is fixated on that man, and on several occasions cited the “Palin/McCain” campaign, putting herself at the top of the ticket), 3.) they were so concerned about her mental health they wanted to call in a physician to deal with her.

Comment #251: Lidia  on  07/06  at  11:01 AM

Sarah’s doctor refused to confirm the story… In the course of an attempt by ADN to refute the rumors, Lisa Demer interviewed Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Sarah Palin’s personal physician. The doctor attended the interview in the company of her personal lawyer. When Ms. Demer asked the doctor whether she was present at Trig’s birth, Dr. Baldwin-Johnson refused to confirm that she had been there and, on advice of counsel, refused to answer any more questions. She has not spoken again on this subject, and in fact has maintained a low profile even in her own community since that time.

Comment #252: Gunsmoke  on  07/06  at  11:11 AM

MurrowFan says: “If Trig isn’t who Sarah Palin says he is, then somebody else also knows this, and that somebody isn’t coming forward to collect the shitload of cash this information would garner.  I find it hard to believe that anyone in such a position wouldn’t take the money and run.”

Well, what if the mother was a young Christian from an abstinence-only culture, who put her child up for private adoption through one of the Christian pregnancy counseling centers (white baby farms) that Palin has blessed with speaking engagements?

You aren’t taking into account the depths of some people’s belief that 1.) Sarah is “anointed”, 2.) the Rapture is coming, 3.) it’s valid to resort to any means necessary (including lying and fraud) to bring about what they see as “God’s Will”. We’re talking the 700 Club sort of follower, who thinks secular America is abomination. Whether that is Sarah’s true belief or not (I tend to think it is not, as I think her personality is only capable of opportunism and expediency rather than sustained belief in anything, fact or fiction), it certainly is the believe of many of her supporters.

Visit the Conservatives for Palin site: they clearly state that they would die for her. They talk about feeding their grandchildren rice so that they can send Palin more money each month from their fixed income. You don’t think from that crowd could come forth an “extra” hard-to-adopt-out DS baby??

Comment #253: Lidia  on  07/06  at  11:19 AM

(believe => belief)
P.S. I am not saying that the above is what occurred, but am merely pointing out that people have motivations other than money.

Another, negative, motivation is that people who have information are rightly fearful of retaliation. Her entire time as governor all she and Todd did was obsessively harass, stalk and pursue her ex-BIL Trooper Wooten. In Alaska, an anti-Palin sign on someone’s property has led to their porch being set on fire and their dog shot dead. How far would you be willing to go to cross people like that? She is insane. You had better be willing to up and leave your job, family and friends flat and just bug out of there.

I believe (or rather, I hope) that at some point will come a critical mass, where multiple informants come out with details all at once, taking advantage of the relative safety in numbers.

Comment #254: Lidia  on  07/06  at  11:33 AM

What you don’t seem to understand is that this is not just a massive hoax on Palin’s part.. but that FOR TWO YEARS corporate media has studiously, concertedly, LOOKED THE OTHER WAY while a mentally-ill person, who stuffed a cushion down her pants in order to fake a pregnancy, was mounted as a viable candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the United States, and is still treated as credible by most mainstream news outlets.

You see it doesn’t matter whether it happened or not because there are way bigger issues that the media don’t report on. They already spend way too much time on the sex and family lives of the famous than they do on any kind of depth on the crimes of corporations, fiscal reform, massive inequalities, lobbyists, what do conservatives really believe and so on. If your response to a big report on cable news about Palin and Trig is “hah finally they wake up” and not “oh ye gods here we go again, where is the report on how wall street is killing financial reform or anything of importance” your priorities are kind of screwy in my estimation.

Comment #255: pharmakos  on  07/06  at  11:37 AM

  Prove it.

Explain how proving my age will substantiate Sarah Palin’s claim to maternity of Trig Palin? Please be specific.
Comment #280: Chet on 07/06 at 02:02 AM

I didn’t say it would.  I’m asking how you would prove that you are the age you claim, the person you claim to be.  It’s a question about evidence in general, and how reasonable it is to ask certain questions. 

Why does it matter, when she’s been proven a big fat liar in so many other ways?

Why do you think you have the right to the birth certificate of someone who’s not a candidate?

Maybe you are right and the birth date is different than we think.  Maybe Trig is adopted (or even a foster) and Palin was stupid enough to try to pretend she was carrying the baby rather than just take the credit for adopting a special needs baby.

The problem is, this affects not just Sarah Palin, but Trig, and anyone else involved, who deserve their privacy.  Yes, even a little Down syndrome baby has rights to privacy.

You don’t have to try to prove that Trig isn’t Sarah Palin’s child to show she lied.  Her account of the labor and birth changed over time.  It’s not a matter of Sarah saying X and her supporters saying Y and Z—she said X and Y and Z.  The truth literally doesn’t matter—the fact that she presented more than one version means, logically, she lied at some point about it.

You can simply stop there.

She also may be a shitty mother.  But the scrutiny on her as mother is way beyond what any male politician would face.  Jesse Jackson has multiple children outside his marriage.  Ronald Reagan was a nice guy in public, a shit to his kids.  Strom Thurmond had a child with his African-American housekeeper for crying out loud.  Yet Palin got crapped on for leaving her kids in Alaska to go campaigning, like any normal candidate does.

Comment #256: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  11:49 AM

Here is the problem with Chet’s argument. He is presenting a grouping of facts that range from totally unremarkable to largely implausible, granting them all equal weight as “Sarah Palin’s claim to have given birth to Trig”, and then dismissing the whole thing on the grounds of the implausible claims, while disregarding the obvious facts that Trig exists, and is in the custody of Sarah Palin, and any explanation for this truth that is *not* “Sarah Palin gave birth to him” turns out to be even more wildly implausible than the most ridiculous of Palin’s claims. And he backs all of this up by saying “Palin lies.” Well, she sure does, but lying that my hat is blue when it’s green doesn’t mean I’m not wearing a hat.

Let us present the arguments:

1. Palin, a 40-something-year-old woman, announces that she is pregnant.
  Likelihood that she is pregnant: Very high. 40-something-year-old women who don’t use birth control get pregnant all the time.
  The alternative that she is lying: Highly unlikely. As a four-time mother who is soon to be a grandmother at this point, Palin has nothing to prove about her fertility.

2. Palin, a woman who has shown heavily in previous pregnancies, looks fat but not pregnant in photos.
    Likelihood that she is pregnant: Still rather high. The kind of plastic surgery that can be done to repair a woman’s damaged stomach muscles after a pregnancy and pull them back together can easily result in the woman showing differently. The alternative is that the beauty queen of Wasilla let herself get fat. This is, given Palin’s personality, less likely than being pregnant.

3. Palin did not appear to be pregnant to witnesses who saw her on the day before she had Trig.
    We already know from the pictures that she’d been dressing to conceal her pregnancy, and that she has a significant tummy bump which looks like she’s gotten mildly overweight in some of the pictures, so witnesses are probably being affected by the same thing that affects the photos.
    Likelihood that she is pregnant: As high as it was with 2, because 2 and 3 go together.

4. Palin flew on several airplanes despite their policies that pregnant women should not fly.
    Given 2 and 3, the likelihood that the airline *knew* she was pregnant to forbid her to get on it is very low. Therefore, this speaks only to Palin’s judgement—would she get on a plane, knowing she was pregnant? We know Palin’s judgement is poor, therefore we cannot say that she would not do so. Likelihood that she is pregnant remains high.

5. Palin claims to have flown ten hours after her water broke and she was in active labor.
  Likelihood that this story is true: low. Likelihood that the untruth of this story means that she was never pregnant in the first place, rather than that she wasn’t in active labor when she flew: very, very low. The alternative explanation to “she was never pregnant” is “she was not in labor”, which is really much more likely, especially given 6:

6. Palin’s doctor claims to have induced her.
  Likelihood that this story is true: Given Palin’s schedule, if Trig had reached 37 weeks (which is technically considered full-term, although due dates are calculated on 40 weeks), the doctor might well have decided that the safest thing to do would be to get him out of her at a specific, scheduled time, which means either c-section or induction, and Palin’s vanity would probably prefer induction. Thus, this story is likely to be true. It also explains how 5 could be untrue without contradicting anything else.

(continued)

Comment #257: Alara J Rogers  on  07/06  at  11:53 AM

(continued from above)

Now, the alternative scenario, that she was never pregnant, expects us to believe one of the following:

1. Palin lied about being pregnant.
2. Having lied about being pregnant, she needed to come up with a baby.
3. She arranged to adopt a baby at the hospital in Wasilla after returning from Texas.
4. This was done in absolute secrecy so that Palin could pretend that it was her baby.
5. The doctor who claims to have delivered Palin’s baby was in on it.
6. Everyone at the hospital who would have been involved in the delivery of the baby was also in on it.
7. None of these people, including the birth mother, have broken ranks to talk, despite the financial advantage of doing so, even now that Palin is no longer governor.

Or:

1. Palin lied about being pregnant to cover for Bristol’s pregnancy.
2. However, after Bristol gave birth to Trip, she *immediately*, within days, became pregnant again.
3. Palin decided to stop trying to cover for Bristol and allowed the world to know of Bristol’s second pregnancy.
4. Bristol’s first child had Down’s syndrome, a condition far more often found in the children of older women.
5. Bristol’s second child was premature but showed no signs of it.

Both stories are, in fact, vastly more implausible than the notion that a 40-something-year old vain woman became pregnant with a Down’s syndrome baby after she’d had a tummy tuck to repair the damage from her previous pregnancies, that she worked during her pregnancy to avoid gaining much weight, that as a result she didn’t look very pregnant, and so she continued to use airlines as much as she wished, either because she thought she was a special snowflake and the rules didn’t apply to her or because she wanted to miscarry, and her doctor decided to induce her because telling her to stop flying wasn’t helping, and she then spun a story about how she heroically stuck out 10 hours in labor on an airplane.

Comment #258: Alara J Rogers  on  07/06  at  11:53 AM

pharmakos, what ‘bigger issue’ could there be than possibly having a president who is a real, certifiable, uncontrollable psychopath, pathological liar and moron (vastly crazier and stupider than GWB)? She lies continuously, about bizarre things, even when the truth would suit her better. Her entire life is a fraud.

Perhaps the Palin risk does not seem imminent any longer, but the precedent has been set: the media not only avoids doing its job, but has actively (to my mind) committed treason, in which they are complicit along with Mr. McCain.

It’s exactly BECAUSE they have had no trouble digging up dirt on Edwards, or now Al Gore, that this sticks out like sore thumb: why the reticence? It matters because this is easy to report on, whereas challenging a sitting administration re. evidence of WMDs or mis-handling the financial crisis is hard and potentially ‘boring’.

It’s the difference between being lazy, toothless watchdogs and being active enablers on behalf of one particularly obvious psychopath *against* the public.


—————————
Yesterday evening as I was flying back to Juneau from a business trip in Seattle, I had the pleasure of chatting with you and your husband Todd in the Alaska Airlines boardroom. It seemed as though you were engrossed in a book so I spoke mostly with Todd and tried not to intrude on your opportunity to relax. Little did I know that your were in labor at the time. I’m impressed that you were gracious enough to speak with me even though you both obviously had much more important things on your mind. In retrospect, it would have been totally understandable if you had just asked to be left alone.  My prayers will be with you, your new son and your family.
Sincerely, John Carlile

http://www.crivellawest.net/pdf/1192.pdf

Comment #259: Lidia  on  07/06  at  11:59 AM

To Alara J Rogers: Palin’s doctor has not said anything about inducing Palin’s labor. You are introducing your own “facts” and drawing a conclusion from those (you have done this in too many instances to rebut, above, so I will pick just this one).

An incomplete and sketchy-looking “note” -purportedly from Dr. CBJ- was presented in lieu of medical records, this only hours before the polls opened on Election Day. This document goes into more detail on the health of Trig than it does re. Sarah. This document omits two abortions (‘miscarriages’) that Sarah admits having, which would have made the Trig pregnancy her seventh and not her fifth; on that basis alone the document is already non-factual.

What Dr. CBJ actually DID say was that she “did not think it was unreasonable” for Palin to fly that evening.

Well of course it was not unreasonable.. because Palin was not pregnant!

http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/subpage12.html

Comment #260: Lidia  on  07/06  at  12:07 PM

I’m not interested in arguing with you. Argue with Alara j Rogers. I still think its a load of horseshit. Thinking about and explaining healthcare reform, financial reform, energy policy and foreign policy are hard but that’s the point of having journalists as well as geeks. Worrying about Palin or who Bill Clinton is fucking is just off the point and I’m not going to pretend they or I should give a shit.

Comment #261: pharmakos  on  07/06  at  12:11 PM

Just a quick note on the end of this- if the pregnancy did end at 37 weeks, that would be entirely unremarkable for a baby with DS. Even slightly earlier. My daughter was born at 41.5 weeks, but that is highly unusual, especially as she was over 8 pounds (the charts for babies with DS didn’t even go that high for newborns).

Comment #262: TheRealistMom  on  07/06  at  12:13 PM

Here is the doctor’s note released by the McCain campaign.. I erred, above, in stating that it noted all of Sarah’s pregnancies; it only notes her ‘term’ deliveries.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-11/43179602.pdf

My belief is that this hastily put-together document (note that the text isn’t even lined up with the page; note that the line below the signature has letters in two different shades of grey) was released by the McCain campaign and not by Dr. CBJ. Otherwise, why would she need to bring a lawyer with her to an interview by the ADN?

Comment #263: Lidia  on  07/06  at  12:19 PM

Are we going to start to look at the kerning of that doctor’s note too?

Comment #264: BlackBloc  on  07/06  at  12:26 PM

“The idea that I can’t carry on 2 ounces of toothpaste, but Sarah Palin can sneak on 8 pounds of baby with nobody noticing is totally retarded.”

Do you see how ugly this is?  I managed to miss the first time you used this word.  Bleargh.

“skepticism is when we don’t take people’s word for things.
Comment #292: Chet on 07/06 at 02:32 AM”

But a birth certificate is just the word of some government functionary.  Given that Palin was governator at the time, and a dragon lady, that would mean pretty much nothing, right?

Mnemosyne, the article you linked to with quotes from the doctor also says:

In a letter she e-mailed to relatives and close friends Friday after giving birth, Palin wrote, “Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this.” She wrote it in the voice of and signed it as “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”

We don’t have to prove she’s lying about Trig—she thinks she’s God, signing his name to emails.  This is way beyond lying about the origin of a child, isn’t it?

Gunsmoke, I’ve been trying to find a link to a page with the claim about Palin’s doctor not answering questions by Lisa Demer, and bringing an attorney to the interview.  I can’t find any that aren’t on palingate.com, and that site locks up my browser something fierce.  Google doesn’t find it anywhere on adn.com.  Where’s the source?

I have to wonder why this particular supposed lie is so important.  I’m not saying lying is okay, or that if she lied about this it’s not disgusting, or impossible.  But what is it that makes Chet call everyone names because they don’t agree about the likelihood of Palin’s lying about this?

What is it about this “fake motherhood” that touches these people so deeply?  Would they react the same way if they found out that a male politician had a child in his family that wasn’t biologically his?

Comment #265: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  12:40 PM

If Palin was actually pregnant she would have needed to show a signed permission form from her doctor in order to board. Why didn’t any of the flight personnel see it?

Because first, that isn’t required. And second, flight personnel have a lot of other important things to do besides eyeing chubby women and (a) trying to determine if they are pregnant and (b) if they decide yes to a, try to figure out exactly how pregnant that woman is.

I flew both American and United in later pregnancy—and I am a stick who does not carry that small—without anyone saying anything to me about it.  I didn’t fly after 36 weeks (heck I gave birth at 37 weeks) but there wasn’t much a difference in my stomach size between 33 and 36 weeks.

Comment #266: hp  on  07/06  at  12:40 PM

Alara:  “5. Palin claims to have flown ten hours after her water broke and she was in active labor.”

Actually she said she wasn’t in active labor:

“I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor,” Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn’t in labor.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html#ixzz0sux1tCkM

Lidia:  “Palin’s doctor has not said anything about inducing Palin’s labor. You are introducing your own “facts” and drawing a conclusion from those (you have done this in too many instances to rebut, above, so I will pick just this one).”

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn’t come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html#ixzz0suxxzClF

Comment #267: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  12:48 PM

As a scholar of conspiracy theorists, I hereby recommend that, to stop any possible confusion, the Tea Party nuts who think Obama is Kenyan be renamed ‘certificaters’, and that ‘birthers’ be reserved for the Sarah Palin obsessed.

Comment #268: BlackBloc  on  07/06  at  12:48 PM

Lidia, there’s nothing odd about that document.  I put letterhead paper in the printer crooked sometimes, too. 

And “two shades of grey”?  I’m not seeing it, but, really, you would think people who are forging documents would use a pen that doesn’t skip, and would make more than one copy of the document so if they screwed up, they could fix it.

Comment #269: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  01:00 PM

I’d also like to point out that Sarah Palin has NEVER adressed my accusations that she used her fake-gina (the existence of which she cleverly concealed by faking being pregnant with Trig) to smuggle in the explosives used to take down the WTC in a controlled explosion. Now if she had disputed those allegations we should not believe her because she’s a lying liar, but she never even tried countering these accusations, showing just how shadowy and devious she is.

Comment #270: BlackBloc  on  07/06  at  01:02 PM

Testimony of a doctor who says they attended a birth is evidence. Isn’t it?

I find it easier to believe that she dressed to conceal a pregnancy, like many women do. I find it easy to believe that thanks to many factors, she had an easy time concealing a pregnancy. Each pregnancy is different, so saying that she was huge for previous pregnancies means absolutely nothing. It is neutral, proving nothing on either side. Her appearance is completely neutral, in fact, because of this. We just don’t know how she would show her fifth pregnancy, especially if she had indeed had plastic surgery (we don’t know, again, but given that plastic surgery isn’t essential to the explanation, it doesn’t change anything that we don’t know for sure).

My wife and I have two kids, both attended by a midwife. They were born at home. We have options. We could have opted for a midwife-assisted hospital birth, a doctor assisted hospital birth, an OB/GYN, whatever. That’s Canada, I don’t have personal experience in the USA, but up-thread women who DO have personal experience with childbirth in the USA have stated that they could choose who would attend the birth. So CBJ could have been the one attending the birth.

There is, therefor, no evidence that she didn’t, and she said she did. Is she a liar too? How much counts as “just one piece of evidence?” Because so far, one piece of evidence has been presented, and ignored by a person who repeats over and over that they just need one piece of evidence.

And I feel like an idiot for even posting this, given that the person I’m directing it towards will either ignore it or call me stupid for just taking somebody’s word. Even though it’s a doctor who has a professional reputation to maintain and can face consequences (serious ones) for having destroyed credibility.

I don’t have to believe all of Palin’s story about the birth of her fifth kid in order to believe Trigg is really her kid (I don’t even know if it’s a boy or a girl; what kind of name is Trigg, anyway?). I don’t even have to believe Sarah Palin. I only have to believe her doctor, who says Trigg is Palin’s kid.

Comment #271: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  07/06  at  01:12 PM

Ms. Marcotte—and anyone else who’s interested—I’d like to invite you to take a look at a screen capture picture of Sarah Palin taken in late February 2008, when Scott Slone interviewed Sarah Palin in a “walk around Juneau” short documentary video (the video itself can be viewed at http://www.alaskahdtv.com/2008/juneau-hike-with-sarah-palin/
and the point in time on the video where I’d obtained that screen capture is ~03:49 (the whole walking sequence is from 03:29 to 05:52)

The screen capture:  http://tinyurl.com/2da92ow  (other screen capture pictures from the video are here:  http://tinyurl.com/ygo2lqp )

Scott Slone had just knocked on the Governor’s Mansion door, with two cups of coffee in hand (I wonder if she ever drank hers, considering her “pregnancy” situation)...Sarah Palin answered the door, and came out with him to walk up (literally, it’s an upward incline of the street) to the Capitol building several blocks away. 

This screen capture is just as they’ve left the Mansion.  Palin is allegedly 3 months from her due date, i.e., she’s supposedly SIX MONTHS PREGNANT at the time.  She’s also 5’3” tall, and is wearing 3” heels, and walking briskly.  On slushy sidewalks and across streets.  Never slowing down.  Talking nonstop, not out of breath…

Notice how the zipper on Palin’s closed jacket is INDENTED, or convex, inward toward her stomach area (this phenomenon can be seen several times during the sequence).  OK, where’s that baby?  In a backpack hidden on Palin’s back?  To be honest, Scott Slone looks more pregnant than Sarah Palin does.

Really, you still believe this woman is SIX MONTHS PREGNANT?

Comment #272: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  01:29 PM

Notice how the zipper on Palin’s closed jacket is INDENTED, or convex, inward toward her stomach area (this phenomenon can be seen several times during the sequence).  OK, where’s that baby?

Seriously?  I mean, SERIOUSLY???

This absurd thread has now been reduced to analyzing the position of a zipper on Palin’s jacket as she walked uphill through snow as evidence of her non-pregnancy??

Because proving that she wasn’t actually pregnant in 2008 matters so much that it deserves a nearly 400 comment thread?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Y’all are killing me!

Comment #273: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  01:43 PM

The other thing you have to consider is: why even bother?

I mean, in order to present the notion that Sarah Palin lied about being pregnant, you either need *ironclad* proof that she was not pregnant—which does not exist; there’s “she didn’t look very pregnant” aaaaand… that’s about it—or you need to present a compelling motive. For example, while there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Barack Obama’s family faked his birth certificate to give him natural born American status, the fact that he has the legal right to be president riding on it means that the stakes are enormously high, and therefore there is motive. The notion that people landed on the moon is *incredibly* unlikely for most of human history, and the fact that we did it during the Cold War provides an excellent motive for why we would have wanted to fake a moon landing. George Bush benefited so much from 9/11 in terms of his popularity and being able to achieve his goals as president that it’s obvious why he might have *wanted* to arrange, or just not stop, the attack. So all of these things present us with a good motive for why the supposed perpetrator of the conspiracy would want to do such a thing.

Sarah Palin? Has no such motive. No one has even presented one aside from “she lies a lot.” But pathological liars have motivations for their lies. They wish to avoid conflict, or aggrandize themselves. People with delusions have motivations as well. *No* one does something irrational “just because they’re irrational”—they have a motive that made sense to *them*, even if they are mentally ill and their motive makes little sense to others.

So if we assume that the evidence that Sarah Palin was not pregnant is of equal weight with the evidence that she was pregnant, with “she didn’t look very pregnant” matched against “well, she looks kinda large in the tummy in some of those pics”, then you have to follow up with: which one is more likely given the *rest* of the evidence? And the rest of the evidence includes normal human behavior.

On the one hand, we have to believe that a vain 40-something religious political figure who’s very physically active and also very concerned with her beauty could conceive a child with Down’s Syndrome, carry her pregnancy such that it wasn’t very visible, and then fail to curtail her usual activities, but run around acting the same as she did when she wasn’t pregnant. This is just not implausible at all. Not every woman would be capable of this, or would even want to try, but the idea that Palin would want to continue to look stereotypically attractive and present the image of herself as active and healthy while she was pregnant? Oh, shocking. Call the press.

On the other hand, we have to believe that a mother of four kids with a grandchild on the way would declare a pregnancy that doesn’t exist, that she’d had to have several people in on it, that she adopted a child with special needs and then passed him off as her own—when “adopting a child with special needs” in order to save him from being aborted would, politically, make her look *just* as good as being pregnant herself and not aborting her special needs fetus would. In fact in some ways it would make her look better. Not only is Saintly Sarah fertile, with four kids of her own, but she just loves children so much that she even adopted a special needs boy in order to save him from the dire fate of abortion. There is just *no* rational reason why a person would do this, and not too many irrational reasons either, and no evidence that Sarah Palin, who tells lies to aggrandize herself and make herself look stronger and tougher than she is, is actually delusional at the level of thinking she is pregnant if she’s not.

Or, we’d have to believe that she was covering up for her daughter’s indiscretion. Which made perfect sense up until the point that the media found out that Bristol Palin was pregnant with a *different* baby, and the timing was too tight to make any sense. Palin might have a powerful motive to cover up for her daughter… but we now have proof that it pretty much could not have been her daughter’s baby, and that she did *not* go to the length of pretending it was her own child to cover up for her daughter when her daughter was actually pregnant.

(continued)

Comment #274: Alara J Rogers  on  07/06  at  01:53 PM

(continued from above)

The conspiracy theory originally had motive, at least, up until we found out that Bristol Palin was pregnant. Now there is no rational motive. Plenty of people are willing to ascribe totally irrational motives to Palin and in fact are using the “fact” that her baby wasn’t hers—a fact that is not proven, and relies on the belief that Palin is totally irrational to become even vaguely plausible—as proof that Palin is totally irrational to the point of delusions. This is circular. But the *facts* of the matter are that Sarah Palin has never demonstrated herself to be *that* delusional. A dumbass, yes. A liar, yes. But everything she has said, and everything she has lied about, can be shown to have a motive—making her look better to the audience she is speaking to, or avoiding a pitfall she thought she was faced with. The idea that she adopted a baby in secret to cover up for the fact that she had announced a pregnancy when she wasn’t really pregnant ascribes to her an irrationality that is *far* far beyond anything that’s ever been proven or demonstrated about her.

So when given as evidence that Palin wasn’t pregnant “she didn’t look pregnant and she didn’t act pregnant”, versus her own announcement that she was pregnant and the lack of any reasonable motive to lie about something like that (remember, adopting a baby also makes her look good to her target audience, and she has no need to prove her bonafides as a mother when she has four kids)... I’m sorry, but reason suggests that she was pregnant. And the insistence that she could not possibly have been pregnant, based on the incredibly thin evidence of “she didn’t look pregnant, and she won’t release her son’s birth certificate”, falls into the trope of declaring that women are just inherently irrational, particularly about babies. Of course Sarah Palin would lie about having a baby! It’s perfectly reasonable to imagine that a woman would be totally irrational and delusional about pregnancy! It’s common sense that if the choices are “she didn’t look pregnant and she won’t release her son’s birth certificate, therefore she wasn’t pregnant” and “she didn’t look pregnant because she had a tummy tuck and she won’t release her son’s birth certificate because it wouldn’t prove a damn thing and she’s pathologically secretive about everything anyway”, obviously she faked a pregnancy because she’s crazy.

I mean, it might be different if there was any *good* evidence that she wasn’t pregnant, but… “she just looked a little fat, not nine months pregnant” is not good evidence, “she did reckless things a pregnant woman shouldn’t have done” is not good evidence, “her doctor is following HIPAA regulations and refusing to comment” is not good evidence, and “she won’t release her son’s birth certificate” is not good evidence. None of these are *remotely* good enough evidence to overwhelm the preponderance of likelihood that she was in fact pregnant, based on the fact that she said so, has no political motive for lying about it, would have looked just as good for adopting a baby as giving birth to one given that she had four kids already, and there is no evidence that she is sufficiently detached from reality to want to make something like that up. So the notion that Occam’s Razor favors the belief that she wasn’t pregnant?... Occam’s Razor *never* favors conspiracies. It *never* favors “people lied about something with no motive to do so.” To believe that someone lied when they have no motivation to tell that *particular* lie requires greater evidence than “they are a liar”, especially if that particular lie would have required involving several other people and swearing them to secrecy.

Comment #275: Alara J Rogers  on  07/06  at  01:54 PM

She’s also 5’3” tall, and is wearing 3” heels, and walking briskly. 
Comment #383: KarenJa on 07/06 at 12:29 PM

Too bad you didn’t read the whole thread, or you’d have seen where I posted a picture from that interview and analyzed it to determine what kind of crazy-ass skyscraper stilettoes that woman was wearing.  I calculated they’d be about 1.89 inches, generously, if when measuring the still I grabbed, I minimized her height and maximized her heel height.

If she’s 5’3”, instead of 5’5”, then her heels are 1.83 inches, max.  Do the math.

I looked at those pictures.  Unless you think the crotch of her pants is where her actual crotch is, it makes perfect sense.  The zipper goes in from the thigh/hip, then out from the lower abdomen, then back in below the breasts, then out again at the breasts, then back in to the neck.  It’s loose so that the part where she sticks out isn’t so obvious.

Comment #276: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  02:10 PM

This absurd thread has now been reduced to analyzing the position of a zipper on Palin’s jacket as she walked uphill through snow as evidence of her non-pregnancy??

If you look at that zipper closely, you can just make out an eye in a pyramid.

Also, Palin as part of the powerful elite must be a Reptilian (David Icke tells me so), so she couldn’t have been pregnant with a baby. She lays eggs. How do you explain that away, you left-wing gatekeepers?

Comment #277: BlackBloc  on  07/06  at  02:11 PM

Oh and BTW if she is 5’3” or 5’5” she is a petite, and if this isn’t a petite maternity outfit, the jacket will be long on her, and it will curve outward at the bottom because it’s below her belly and being struck by her legs when she walks.

Being 5’5” myself, not really petite but shorter than “average,” I can tell you that it is pretty much impossible to find petite clothing that isn’t too petite for me (highwater pants) so I usually just put up with the extra length.  I can imagine Palin not bothering too much about it either, especially when a little extra length will provide extra warmth and it’s not worth altering a garment you’re not planning on wearing again after a couple of months.

Comment #278: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  02:25 PM

BlackBloc :

She lays eggs. How do you explain that away, you left-wing gatekeepers?

And how big would those eggs have to be, to gestate a hatchling of Trig’s size? of COURSE gravid Reptoids have bulging bellies. Or maybe that’s just what they want us to think…

Comment #279: Mike Crichton  on  07/06  at  02:56 PM

I believe that Palin did not give birth to Trig. Her “gut” in the lightened
version of that picture is square. And it seems disingenuous to me to claim
that some women travel for many hours to give birth. Palin, who had already
had at least two miscarriages, was carrying a child at a high risk for
complications. Yet she didn’t even choose to stop and have the baby at
Anchorage’s NICU unit (which would have satisfied Todd’s “fish picker”
requirement). Instead, she chose to have her high-risk,
leaking-amniotic-fluid delivery at a hospital that’s so small and ill
equipped that it doesn’t even allow the birth of twins. But that hospital
does have one overwhelming advantage—it’s run by Sarah’s church.

“We know for a fact that Sarah Palin is an impulsive person who is rather
disdain of rationality.”

I’m not sure what “rather disdain of rationality” means but I agree that
she’s impulsive.

I actually find it incredible that anyone’s default position for Sarah Palin
is that she’s telling the truth. She charged out of the national political
gate by lying about the Bridge to Nowhere and she hasn’t stopped lying
since.

Re: the birth certificate: people in Alaska have stated that an altered
birth certificate would reflect Sarah and Todd as parents but would NOT
change the date of birth of Trig. I believe that’s why she hasn’t shown one.

I’m glad to see people talking about this issue. I don’t think it’s been
debunked in this post.

Comment #280: Dirge  on  07/06  at  03:23 PM

I’m with chet on this one. There is absolutely no proof that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig. In fact, everything indicates that she didn’t. There are so many holes in SP’s story that it is hard to know where to start.

The one thing that I could never get over was the fact that she outed Bristol’s pregnancy rather than produce a birth cert. I know people will say that it would have come out anyway, but what sort of mother does that to her pregnant teenage daughter?

I have been following this whole charade since SP was nominated by McCain. If you google the pictures of Trig being presented to the world by Sally and Chuck Heath at the hospital after his birth and compare them to the pictures of the tiny baby presented as Trig at the baby shower…..it is obvious that they are completely different babies. So, if she was switching babies for photo ops at that stage, what else is she capable of?

SP won’t produce a birth cert because Trig was not born on the 18th of April. That is what she is hiding.

Also, too. Funny how SP announced her “pregnancy” the day after McCain secured the GOP presidential bid.  Coincidence? Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in coincidence!

Comment #281: PuzzledinEurope  on  07/06  at  03:48 PM

Dirge, I didn’t see your comment before I posted. Glad you feel the same way about the birth cert and the date. And no, the issue certainly has not been debunked.

Comment #282: PuzzledinEurope  on  07/06  at  03:54 PM

Ok, fess up. Which community of conspiracy loons linked to this post? (A number of trigbirthers suddenly show up all at the same time and apart from Chet I don’t remember them posting ever before? Looks like external linking to me.)

Comment #283: BlackBloc  on  07/06  at  04:08 PM

Having lied about being pregnant, she needed to come up with a baby.

See, why wouldn’t she come up with a miscarriage, if this were the case? She has a history of miscarriages, as many women of that age do, sans BC.

Furthermore, why in the hell does any of this matter, especially since she’s crazied herself out of winning anything besides a sled dog race at this point?

Comment #284: Selena777  on  07/06  at  04:25 PM

I entertained the theory until Bristol’s public pregnancy ruled it out.

Now, if you told me that Sarah acted like an irresponsible moron on the day Trig was born because she sorta kinda hoped the baby might not survive, because she couldn’t have had the abortion she really wanted and still be the rightwingnuts’ poster girl? I’d buy that.

Comment #285: ttintagel  on  07/06  at  04:51 PM

Furthermore, why in the hell does any of this matter, especially since she’s crazied herself out of winning anything besides a sled dog race at this point?

Thank you for saying that which desperately needed to be said.

“She could have been vice-president” has about as much weight as me saying that I could have been the greatest basketball player in history.

I am not the greatest basketball player in hsitory, nor will I ever be.  I’m not even very good at basketball.  But hey, I could have been the greatest b-ball player in history, if only I were a bit more athletic and about 12 inches taller.

Sarah Palin could have become the first female Vice President of the United States if John McCain had won 270 or more Electoral Votes on November 4, 2008.  But as you know, I know, and everone not living in a cave for the past 20 months knows, John McCain failed to win 270 EVs, and thus failed to become the 44th President, and thus Sarah Palin failed to become our 47th Vice President.

Though Ms. Palin has managed to cash in on her newfound fame as Bible Spice, Real American Hero™, she has failed to attain enough support to ever be a viable presidential contender.  Even most Republicans don’t believe that she can win the presidency, nor do they particularly want her to run for it, as many polls have shown.  They like her as a charismatic rabble-rousing speechifier and crowd pleaser, but they don’t actually want her to become our president.

That she “could have been” vice president is now a moot point.  She wasn’t, isn’t, and will never be our vice president, so concerns about what coulda, woulda, shoulda happened are pointless.  Because they didn’t happen.

As such, I’m not concerned about the possibility of her becoming POTUS and running our country completely into the ground, because I don’t believe she has a shot in hell of winning a presidential election, even if her opponent was just a piece of balsa wood.

Regarding Trig Palin, you know what?  I just really don’t care.  Nor do the vast majority of American citizens.  It’s just not a terribly important issue that needs to be conclusively and definitively resolved.

If some sort of irrefutable evidence surfaced tomorrow that could either absolutely confirm or absolutely refute the claim that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin’s number, you’ll hear maybe a 5 second soundbyte on the topic on TV.  And then what?  It will have absolutely no substantial impact on anything.  Obama will still be the president, and Sarah Palin will still not be the Vice President.  And that’s the end of it.  Cancer will still not yet be cured, people will continue to die unnecesarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people will still go to baseball games to root for their favorite teams.  There is nothing of earth-shattering importance in having the full story absolutely confirmed or refuted one way or another.

It. Just. Doesn’t. Really. Matter.

Nobody really gives a shit at this point.  And I can’t blame them… there are about a zillion far more pressing problems in this world to focus our energy on than attempting to get absolute resolution on the issue of Trig Palin’s parentage.

Comment #286: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  05:06 PM

KeithM way back up there somewhere - it isn’t an issue just of space - it’s liability, inconvenience, everyone’s safety in an emergency landing, etc.  The analogy is a public bus and an ambulance.  SO your point is taken that it isn’t because of pain.  But all the other points remain.  Palin lied and showed reckless disregard for the fetus and other passengers.  Agree?

Comment #287: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  05:06 PM

To Chet @ #115 well yeah, I have (although some of you didn’t see it)  That video of her panting alongside the reporter on what looks to be a relatively mild “urban hike.”  Unless you’re claiming that she’s astute enough to fake that breathlessness (doubtful from other evidence) it doesn’t jibe with the inshape runner she’s supposed to be.  I also perceive a bit of pregnant woman wide stance walk in her stride from certain angles.  So yeah, I’d call that evidence.

Comment #288: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  05:13 PM

Hello Amanda, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

There are multiple theories discussed concerning Sarah Palin’s reported 5th pregnancy, not just one, so it seems somewhat disingenuous to turn that one into your straw man for this post. If you had spent a few months examining the theory that Sarah birthed Trig with a skeptical approach, I have no doubt you would have noticed a substantial amount of evidence indicating she did not give birth the DS child she’s been using as a prop for two years.  Speculation about the identity of the actual birth mother is a separate topic, as is speculation about Sarah’s motives, means and opportunity.

That you rest your debunking on just one conjoined theory and then discount “proofs” 1 through 4 (as if that is all there is to the story) does a disservice to your readers.  That you have to put down Andrew Sullivan and Litbrit (along with many others who are, at the least, dubious and more often, outright disbelieving of the official story) is in poor taste. 

To all who make it this far down in the comments, please remember that a skeptic doesn’t take anything for granted. We don’t even know with any certainty that the child known as Trig was born on April 18, 2008, at the Mat-Su medical center. And remember, just because someone labels a theory a “zombie conspiracy theory” doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Comment #289: Leef  on  07/06  at  05:15 PM

Mnemosyne, of all the bizarre claims in comments here that you’ve made, your Comments in #186 and #199 are by far the worst examples of deflection, projection, untruth, and hot-air straw-man arguments I’ve ever seen. 

Also, are you a mental health professional, Mnemosyne?  Your implications in #202 and #206 that Chet or anyone else asking pointed questions about this Sarah Palin/Trig birth conundrum is having delusions or should be “involuntarily committed” is insulting in the extreme.  BTW, if someone does “head down to the ER” to ask to be committed, they are VOLUNTARILY, not involuntarily, asking.  I guess I answered my own question about whether you’re a mental health professional…

Comment #290: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  05:26 PM

Hey, PZ called - he wants his never-ending thread back!

Comment #291: Theron  on  07/06  at  05:43 PM

TO Caren @ #163 - that’s exactly what I’ve been saying - does one have to have a feminine sounding moniker or a tagline on a moniker to get a fair hearing here?  Or do I read on and find that you too are guilty of guilt tripping women and being judgmental about their parenting and pregnancy practices?

Comment #292: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  05:45 PM

So, Chet, you want a birth certificate, even though adoptive birth certificates are ROUTINELY generated with the adoptive parents’ name on it and no indication that it’s an adoptive birth certificate?
What would that prove?  Nothing.  Nothing at all. [...]
Comment #210: oldfeminist on 07/05 at 09:07 PM…also follow-up Comment #217: oldfeminist on 07/05 at 09:19 P

You’ve completely missed the point of asking for that birth certificate, oldfeminist. 

The one thing Sarah Palin doubtless doesn’t want anyone to see on TriG’s birth certificate is his DATE of birth.  That never changes from original birth certificate to adoptive birth certificate.

Comment #293: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  05:49 PM

elena@167 the big HUGE difference here is that at no point was that prof of yours unable to get to a doc fairly quickly.  THe NY subway doesn’t have a ban on women riding after 36 weeks - does it? HInt: no. Would an ambulance be able to reach her PRONTO should she go into hard labor - yes.  Would a subway train be diverted if a women went into labor? Hint: no.

Comment #294: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  05:49 PM

What is the logic in your claim that Sarah Palin publicly announced a fake pregnancy, took a plane 10 hours from Texas to Alaska, and had her doctor lie and claim that she gave birth so she could adopt a Down Syndrome baby from an anonymous unknown woman?  Comment #218: Mnemosyne on 07/05 at 09:25 PM

Oh, say…to simultaneously bring in a huge block of religious fundamentalist conservative Christian “base” into the McCain/Palin fold, who otherwise might not consider voting for them because she’d have that “pro life cred”...

....and also to “legitimize” that upcoming illegitimate birth expected by her promiscuous and hard-drinking and hard-partying teenage daughter?

It worked, too.

Comment #295: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  05:51 PM

I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn gave birth to Trig while hiding behind the Invisible Dragon In My Garage.

Russel’s Teapot is the father, of course

Comment #296: themann1086  on  07/06  at  06:05 PM

THank you angelscarlett @ 171.  Palin is and the other neocons have already started that crap with the “we’re the new feminists.”  Palin’s whole superwoman/supermom schtick is just that - a schtick, a myth, a lie that depends on privilege.  What she is doing is covering up the privilege and claiming (or others claiming using her as an example) that women DON’t need that 24 hour rule to avoid drive by deliveries, that women (and special needs infants ) don’t need pre-delivery maternity leave, or FMLA, or good, inexpensive, reliable daycare.  Or to stay home with their kids with longer maternity leave if they choose, or nursing rooms at work, or telecommuting or flex schedules.  Just watch.

This is a chess game - you have to pre-empt their next move - and the best way to do that, is to expose the myths for what they are - a lie. 

So pointing out that indeed suppermommy Palin didn’t have a smooth functioning household, or well-behaved kids, or a happy marriage is part of that pre-emption.  So is pointing out that she didn’t had a somewhat functional home is based on privilege - having involved grandparents or siblings who live nearby and are willing to play surrogate parent and not expect in kind repayment.  If there’s one thing I’ve taken from Pandagon, it’s that. 


So pointing out that a “pro-lifer” wasn’t a) ecstatically happy about a pregnancy, that she acted at times in ways that most normal people would see as jeopardizing it, that she hid it (could it be she was keeping her options open???  It’s a legitimate and very normal way to feel - but dammit, when doesn’t want to allow other women those same options) is a very good way to keep her neutralized.  Pointing out the hypocrisy is making sure we aren’t backed into a corner, defending anything she does just because she’s female - as Amanda seems to have allowed herself to be.

Comment #297: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  06:08 PM

Thanks for the hints, phylosopher! Without you, I’m not sure my tiny ladybrain would’ve ever figured out the difference between an airplane and a NYC subway!

My point was that many women go about their lives with no discomfort between the time their water breaks and the time they start actively laboring. So no, I don’t believe she was in labor on the plane, but it is plausible that she would’ve felt no discomfort. Also, no one “bars” pregnant women from flying. It is recommended against medically, and in FAA regulations to fly after 36 weeks. But it’s not banned.

Comment #298: elena  on  07/06  at  06:41 PM

More OT - Apparently Chet doesn’t grok that most people exaggerate important personal stories or that memory is notoriously fallible. By now Palin probably believes that she flew ~10 hrs while in active labour then gave birth in a tornado and walked 30 miles to and fro the hospital, uphill both ways in 27 feet of snow. Doesn’t mean she didn’t give birth. Geez.
Comment #273: KristinMH on 07/06 at 01:37 AM

But the reason it’s important to have the truth out - eve if it’s she was pregnant but wasn’t in active labor on the flight (but she still shouldn’t have flown and broke laws and ethical principles to do so -as did her doc) and none of the rest of it is true or possible.  It’s important to keep the truth out there as oppsed to the She-Ra myth she’s trying to build - because you know this’ll be used to make claims for why we shouldn’t spend tax dollars on snowplows or women shouldn’t get longer paid maternity leaves.  ANd that shit MATTERS.

Comment #299: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  06:46 PM

Chet:

Moreover the doctor’s story can’t be reconciled with Sarah Palin’s. Mutually contradicting stories demand less credibility, not more.

I think the problem here is that most of us who have been in labor and who know other women who have been in labor, don’t find the doctor’s statement and Palin’s mutually contradicting.

There is the labor which we laypeople refer to as labor. Then there is productive labor, which is what doctors tend to refer to as labor. The labor which laypeople refer to as labor can be hard and painful yet not productive, in which case you’re probably already at the hospital due to the intensity of the labor pains, and the doctor induces in order to hopefully stimulate the start of productive labor.

If the cervix is not dilating at a predictable pace, OBs tend to categorize contractions as Braxton-Hicks, no matter what their strength. You show up with strong Braxton-Hicks and broken waters, and you’re both going to be told that you’re not in labor, and you’re immediately getting induced.

Comment #300: hp  on  07/06  at  06:52 PM

And on the flip side of things, labor may not be hard and intense, yet still be productive. Given that my maternal side has a history of long, hard, slow labors, that’s kind of what I was expecting. I started experiencing strongish Braxton-Hicks at 30 weeks, which my OB monitored and dismissed as Braxton-Hicks. When I finally did have the kid, my labor pains did not exceed the contractions I had been experiencing for past 7 weeks until I entered transition (which is the final phase of dilation, from about 7cm->10cm). I have no idea how long I was in productive labor—I was at a party living it up until 2am, had my water break while sleeping at 6am (took a walk around the neighborhood and talked to some of our neighborly early birds), decided to go visit the hospital to be checked out at 8am, had a kid in arms at 10am.

Comment #301: hp  on  07/06  at  07:06 PM

Mnemosyne:  while the FAA may not have specific regs about pregnant women not flying (and yes, it IS in the guidelines), individual airlines do and it hasn’t been challenged by something like the ADA, so that points to the FAA and the ACLU seeing those airline regs as reasonable.  Certainly ACOG says no.

Comment #302: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  07:08 PM

But according to her they weren’t her “first contractions”. She’d been having them since that morning, at least an hour or two before she actually gave the address.  Comment #252: Chet on 07/05 at 11:45 PM

According to Palin herself in her book “Going Rogue”, they weren’t just “first contractions”, either.  In her own words, they were “big contractions” while giving her speech.  Also, the span of time between her “sitting up straight in bed” at 4 AM and the time of the speech was about 8 hours.

You’d think some time along those 8 hours Todd Palin would say to Sarah, “hey, maybe we ought to go to the hospital and get you checked out BEFORE YOUR SPEECH!”  But hell, he didn’t even mention her contractions, her ruptured membranes, or anything related to her pregnancy in an e-mail back to the folks in Alaska that day when he notified them of the change in flight times.

Comment #303: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  07:22 PM

Has it occurred to you that if she _was_ trying for a miscarriage, OF COURSE she’s be skinny, as she’d have been starving herself? Also an unsubstantiated allegation, but one that makes a hell of a lot more sense than yours.  Comment #265: Mike Crichton on 07/06 at 12:49 AM

Sarah Palin’s own comments in “Going Rogue” are that she “porked up”.  So she wasn’t starving herself trying for a “fundie abortion”, aka miscarriage. 

She literally DID “pork up”, I would presume in a mistaken notion that getting fat would make her look more pregnant.  It didn’t.  It just made her look fat.  It’s no wonder that she existed on Red Bull and one bite of steak a day through most of the first month of the 2008 campaign (according to Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace, her campaign advisors).

Comment #304: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  07:25 PM

(BTW I checked to make sure—if they adopted him in Alaska, then they’d be able to get an altered BC.  Alaska adoption rules here.) Comment #260: oldfeminist on 07/06 at 12:16 AM

Again, you’ve missed the point, oldfeminist.

The pertinent part of the Alaska adoption rules at that link:
(f) Certificate of Adoption or Termination of Parental Rights. A person whose parental rights have been terminated under AS 25.23.130 or AS 25.23.180 may request a certificate to be issued by the clerk ... The certificate may disclose only the following information about the adoption or termination:

(1) the case number;

(2) the name of the parent whose rights were terminated;

(3) the date the decree was entered;

(4) the name of the child prior to the adoption or termination; and

most important,———>(5) THE CHILD’S DATE OF BIRTH<——-

================

I think the date of birth is a real problem for the Palins.  Like, it’s not April 18, 2008.  It’s more likely January 18, 2008, or January 28, 2008.  About 2 weeks before Bristol’s first public appearance anywhere since her 5-month case of “mono”.

Comment #305: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  07:33 PM

to oldfeminist @ #367 - yeah, but it’s like Phyllis Schlafly - all women should be conservatives - have lots of kids, be bible thumpers of a bible that says women should stay home.  Just ignore the fact the you are hearing this from a woman. 

But Palin - or her handlers know that isn’t gonna fly with much of the population - after all, Schlafly is mocked and marginalized by most people.

So Palin’s campaign now roles out the SUPERWOMAN FEMINIST Caribou Barbie version 3.0.  Like the original Barbie’s measurements :
If scaled into real life proportions, she would be 5 feet, 9 inches, (1.75 m) measuring 36-18-33. According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, she would lack the requisite 17 to 22 percent of body fat required to menstruate.
Source(s):
Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. New York: William Morrow and Company,
Inc., 1994.

O’Sickey, Ingeborg Majer. “Barbie Magazine and the Aesthetic Commodification of Girls’ Bodies.” On Fashion. Ed. Shari Benstock and Suzanne Ferriss. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994.   

Sorry - we poke holes in the myth NOW.

Comment #306: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  08:06 PM

There are a lot of people asking:  “Why does it matter whether or not Sarah Palin physically gave birth to Trig?”

You have to understand the mentality of the Assemblies of God (Palin’s church) or some of the other evangelical communities.  These people believe that the end of the world is coming soon.  And they believe that President Sarah Palin is going to lead them to the Rapture.  They believe that political power is the key to creating the conditions necessary for Armageddon. 

What does this have to do with Trig?  Many of the evangelicals see Trig Palin’s birth as a miracle, almost an immaculate conception.  A politician of Palin’s stature knowingly birthing a Down’s Syndrome child makes her almost some kind of Virgin Mary figure to these people.  And adopting a Down’s child doesn’t work.  Having the responsibility of caring for Trig thrust upon her makes her the kind of quasi-religious figure that she’s attempting to be.  Choosing to adopt a Baby with Down’s might make her seem saintly, but Palin is aiming for holy. 

Luckily, the Palin evangelicals only amount to 20%-25% of the population.  Unfortunately, these people are highly motivated to get out and vote, so their influence is much larger.  Don’t get overconfident or we could end up with President Palin in 2012.

Comment #307: DarkEFang  on  07/06  at  08:12 PM

Anyone seriously interested in a cool-headed argument of why further investigation of this Palin story is needed, should click on the link in Comment #267: litbrit on 07/06 at 01:07 AM

Comment #308: jeanne marie  on  07/06  at  08:18 PM

Oh yeah, and about the birth certificate:  The name of the parents on the birth certificate are probably not nearly as interesting as the date.  Did the hospital release a premie with jaundice and a hole in his heart after three days?  And did they approve Palin immediately presenting him to an office filled with dozens of journalists, office workers and politicians?

Comment #309: DarkEFang  on  07/06  at  08:19 PM

The bigger question in all of this inane stupidity that has carried on into 400+ comments is this?

What difference does it make?  If it is revealed tomorrow that Sarah Palin fabricated the entire story about giving birth to Trig, what will change in your life?  How will the world be changed?  How will anything other than the lives of the people directly involved in the situation be impacted?

What, she won’t be able to win the presidency?

NEWSFLASH!  Most poll analysts, both Republican and Democrat, already believe that she already is incapable of winning the presidency.  The only difference that a revelation indicating she’s lying about this would make is that she probably wouldn’t even be able to run for the presidency.  But I think most people are doubtful that she’s going to run anyway, and almost nobody believes she could actually win even if she did run.

Sure, it would damage her credibility even more, and would likely cost her future earnings as a public figure, but aside from that, it wouldn’t really mean a damn thing.  It certainly wouldn’t change anything in the lives of any person here.

So I guess what I’m asking is this… why is knowing the absolute truth about this matter so damn important to those who seem to be driven by a need to know the absolute truth here?

What difference does it make?

Comment #310: DTGslu2K  on  07/06  at  08:24 PM

@ Dirge #391 - CHS - COmmunity Health Services which runs MAt-SU Regional is a publicly traded company based in Franklin TN.

Comment #311: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  08:34 PM

elena@412 - one, I’m an equal opportunity snarker genderwise. I take all online monikers with a huge grain of salt- you would have gotten the same if your signed as Leonard. Two, an airline can prevent someone from boarding if they feel that person will cause them to make an emergency landing which by definition endangers the plane, other passengers and their schedule.  And according to at least one version of the story, Palin herself tod teh doc the contractions were “different” form the BH she had been experiencing.

AM I on board the she was never preggers - no.  Do I think her actions are fair game in exposing her as a reckless, fraudulent convinced pro-lifer hypocrite - absolutely.

Comment #312: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  08:46 PM

I politely decline to prove my age, since I could not do so without also revealing my identity, but I accept that it’s not unreasonable for you to ask.

You’re free to suspect that I’m 16 or 60, as you will.
Comment #408: Chet on 07/06 at 04:52 PM

My question was how you’d prove it if you wanted to prove it.  I wanted to know what you think a good proof would be.

The pertinent part of the Alaska adoption rules at that link:
(f) Certificate of Adoption or Termination of Parental Rights.
Comment #419: KarenJa on 07/06 at 06:33 PM

That’s the certificate of adoption.  Not the substitute birth certificate, which is mentioned just a little higher up the page:  “(b) Substitute Birth Certificate. At the request of the adoptive parent and upon payment of fees and completion of forms, the clerk of court shall send a request for a substitute birth certificate to the appropriate state’s vital statistics office. ”  Which doesn’t say what can be altered.

The one thing Sarah Palin doubtless doesn’t want anyone to see on TriG’s birth certificate is his DATE of birth.  That never changes from original birth certificate to adoptive birth certificate.
Comment #405: KarenJa on 07/06 at 04:49 PM

In researching this, I found some evidence that date-changing has been done.

http://reunion.adoption.com/adoption-records/birth-certificates-for-adoptees.html
“According to research by Kate Workman, some states have been known to change information when issuing amended birth certificates. Several states (GA, FL, NC) have routinely shown place of birth as the residence of adoptive parents, even if that differs from the actual place of birth. Other changes have also been noted. These changes can also include date of birth. While differences in date of birth are not common, it’s important to keep in mind that they have been known to occur.”

If Palin is such an eminence grise in Alaskan government, I’d think she could get someone to make that change.

I think her refusal to hand over a BC is more likely to be because someone asked her without kissing her ass.  You think it’s because Trig is not quite what they represent him to be.  Either way, it is very difficult to get this information out of someone if they don’t want it given out. 

She’s based a lot of her credibility on being Supermom, and I think most anyone here would say she doesn’t qualify for that title.  But guess what?  That’s not what makes someone a good leader or political candidate.  Attacking her on this front just buys into this mentality and legitimizes it.  And if there’s one thing I don’t want, it’s women candidates judged on how good they are as mothers. 

Especially not based on the behavior of their teen daughters.

Comment #313: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  09:04 PM

“The idea that I can’t carry on 2 ounces of toothpaste, but Sarah Palin can sneak on 8 pounds of baby with nobody noticing is totally retarded.”  Do you see how ugly this is?  I managed to miss the first time you used this word.  Bleargh.
Comment #376: oldfeminist on 07/06 at 11:40 AM

Oh, stop with the faux outraged BS, please!  Stop with the “politically correct” demands that we eliminate “retarded” as an adjective from the English language.

I can see how it would be demeaning and insulting and totally crude to call someone “retard” (noun), whether they were retarded…er, mentally disabled or not.  Here in this very comment thread “idiot” and “moron” have been flung at one commenter or another.  Where’s your outrage there, eh, oldfeminist?

Comment #314: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  09:14 PM

[...]And while it appears that no one has succeeded in convincing you of Sarah’s maternity with Trig, I don’t think your claims have changed many minds to view it as you do, either.  I, and most people, believe that Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig Palin. [...] Comment #350: Murrow Fan on 07/06 at 04:19 AM

Is that a bit like “most people are against the HCR bill”?  Or “most people think Sarah Palin should be the 2012 Pres. candidate”?

I believe the “most people” that you’re talking about are that small group of Sarah Palin fans who make up about one-third of her Facebook followers/friends.  I’d bet a good portion of the American electorate don’t give a damn about Sarah Palin one way or another, and haven’t been paying attention to her blather and money-making schemes since last year, so that eliminates a lot of “most people”.

 

This absurd thread has now been reduced to analyzing the position of a zipper on Palin’s jacket as she walked uphill through snow as evidence of her non-pregnancy??  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Y’all are killing me!  Comment #384: Murrow Fan on 07/06 at 12:43 PM

Well, there we have it, folks.  Let’s button up this thread.  Murrow Fan wins with THAT argument.

To answer your question, “well, yeah, when the zipper bends inward, not OUTWARD OVER A ALLEGEDLY PREGNANT BELLY!”

Geez, you Palinbots are getting losing brain cells every time you post a comment.

Comment #315: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  09:21 PM

Yeah, sure, phylosopher, we’ve heard all about your “equal opportunity snark” in the CSA thread. Add me to the “not buying” list.

Comment #316: elena  on  07/06  at  09:23 PM

http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/again-with-post-about-sarah-palin-from.html

Huh, I believed Trig was her baby, but that she has lied about her heroic flight.

This rebutal post from litbrit has really caused me to question my own conclusion.

Comment #317: JennyLI  on  07/06  at  09:28 PM

[...]If she’s 5’3”, instead of 5’5”, then her heels are 1.83 inches, max.  Do the math.
I looked at those pictures.  Unless you think the crotch of her pants is where her actual crotch is, it makes perfect sense.  The zipper goes in from the thigh/hip, then out from the lower abdomen, then back in below the breasts, then out again at the breasts, then back in to the neck.  It’s loose so that the part where she sticks out isn’t so obvious.  Comment #387: oldfeminist on 07/06 at 01:10 PM

OK, let’s just say those boots had 2-1/4 inch heels, which is a standard height for spike (not stacked) heels.  Or even 1-3/4 inch heels.  THE POINT IS, she was walking briskly in them, over slush, uphill, talking nonstop to the reporter, without stopping for about 4 Alaska-sized blocks to the Capitol building.  With allegedly a 6 month fetus pushing up against her lungs, and down on her bladder (which might make a difference if she drank any of that coffee).

What’s with your description the “crotch of her pants”?  Didn’t you look at the video?  Surely you don’t think the person on the right in that picture I posted is Sarah Palin?  Sarah Palin is on the left, and she’s wearing a jacket, a long skirt, and boots.  The GUY on the right is wearing a jacket, pants, flat-heeled boots, and a microphone.  Are you sure you’re a feminist?

If you want my honest opinion of where Palin’s pubis (“crotch”) is (I can’t believe we’re discussing this), I’d guess it’s right about the level of the hem of that jacket.  Which would make that inward indentation of her zipper right about where I’d expect a 6-month pregnancy to burgeon OUT.

The wind has flattened Palin’s jacket against her body, and you can clearly see that there is NO bulge outward, and the zipper is perfectly vertical.  There is even a right inward-V fold on the right side of her jacket that molds to her body even more than visible on the left.  And yes, you can see the outward curve of Palin’s jacket about where you’d expect breasts to be…

Comment #318: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  09:39 PM

To Chet @ #115 well yeah, I have (although some of you didn’t see it) That video of her panting alongside the reporter on what looks to be a relatively mild “urban hike.” Unless you’re claiming that she’s astute enough to fake that breathlessness (doubtful from other evidence) it doesn’t jibe with the inshape runner she’s supposed to be.  I also perceive a bit of pregnant woman wide stance walk in her stride from certain angles.  So yeah, I’d call that evidence.  Comment #399: phylosopher on 07/06 at 04:13 PM

You call that “panting alongside…”?  She didn’t sound breathless to me.  Walk alongside ME for a block on a level street, and you’ll hear “breathless” (I’m 65, disabled, and out of shape).

And over the past year and a half, many of us “Palin watchers” having seen many videos of Palin striding here and there, people have commented many times that she “walks like a horse”...i.e., a “wide stance walk”, if you will.  Some people have called it “stomping”.  There’s nothing dainty about the way Palin walks, ever.

Comment #319: KarenJa  on  07/06  at  09:50 PM

And over the past year and a half, many of us “Palin watchers” having seen many videos of Palin striding here and there, people have commented many times that she “walks like a horse”...i.e., a “wide stance walk”, if you will.  Some people have called it “stomping”.  There’s nothing dainty about the way Palin walks, ever.
Comment #433: KarenJa on 07/06 at 08:50 PM

Geez, you Palinbots are getting losing brain cells every time you post a comment.
Comment #429: KarenJa on 07/06 at 08:21 PM

Oh, stop with the faux outraged BS, please!  Stop with the “politically correct” demands that we eliminate “retarded” as an adjective from the English language.

I can see how it would be demeaning and insulting and totally crude to call someone “retard” (noun), whether they were retarded…er, mentally disabled or not.  Here in this very comment thread “idiot” and “moron” have been flung at one commenter or another.  Where’s your outrage there, eh, oldfeminist?
Comment #428: KarenJa on 07/06 at 08:14 PM

Sarah Palin’s own comments in “Going Rogue” are that she “porked up”.  So she wasn’t starving herself trying for a “fundie abortion”, aka miscarriage.

She literally DID “pork up”, I would presume in a mistaken notion that getting fat would make her look more pregnant.  It didn’t.  It just made her look fat.
Comment #418: KarenJa on 07/06 at 06:25 PM

Come on…  My Boxer mix has played keep-away with less flagrant violators of the stick rule.

Comment #320: themmases  on  07/06  at  10:44 PM

I can see how it would be demeaning and insulting and totally crude to call someone “retard” (noun), whether they were retarded…er, mentally disabled or not.  Here in this very comment thread “idiot” and “moron” have been flung at one commenter or another.  Where’s your outrage there, eh, oldfeminist?
Comment #428: KarenJa on 07/06 at 08:14 PM

I did call Chet out on using “idiot” repeatedly.  But idiot or moron aren’t currently used to disparage Down syndrome people, while “retard” and “retarded” are. 

You don’t seem to know where you are.  Let me give you a hint:  calling us “politically correct” doesn’t frighten or dismay us.

And no one here is a Palin fan, let alone a “Palinbot.”  She’s a thoroughly unpleasant person with thoroughly unpleasant politics and I don’t think anyone participating here has any love or even respect for her.

Comment #321: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  10:51 PM

She’s based a lot of her credibility on being Supermom, and I think most anyone here would say she doesn’t qualify for that title.  But guess what?  That’s not what makes someone a good leader or political candidate.  Attacking her on this front just buys into this mentality and legitimizes it.  And if there’s one thing I don’t want, it’s women candidates judged on how good they are as mothers.

Especially not based on the behavior of their teen daughters.
Comment #427: oldfeminist on 07/06 at 08:04 PM

Not to us, maybe, but to a lot of right leaning folks - yes, it does qualify her.  Even to some types of feminists.  It’s why the Republikkkans ran her in the first place.  Attacking the myth of Palin doesn’t affect other candidates - or if it does that’s a battle we can fight later.  Would it be legitimate to criticize say other women - not if they don’t use their kids as props, and claim to be things they’re not.  In Illinois, Mark Kirk is getting a shitload of grief because he embellished his veteran credentials - does being in the National Guard uniquely qualify someone for office - not in my book.  but you don’t let someone get away with telling tales.  Male or female, are you honest? is a legitimate point of inquiry.

Comment #322: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  11:22 PM

For anyone to really be intellectually honest, and not piecemeal and disingenuous about the facts surrounding Palin’s biggest fraud, theseare the points that have been laid out, painstakingly, over the last 20 months.
Is anyone here big enough to stand up to this scrutiny?...cause Palin certainly won’t.
But I will give y’all credit, because this is the first attempt at addressing these questions, short of denial, dismissal, and calling babygaters absurdists. Please though address the questions and not your version of the questions.

Comment #323: Joe Christmas  on  07/06  at  11:25 PM

Yep.  Lot’s of folks want to leave the kid out of it, leave Bristol alone.  But when Sarah is running around screaming about death panels and government takeover of health care, do you think it’s wise or honest, to refrain from loudly noting that her grandson is getting government healthcare, and her daughter has turned down private insurance in favor of it?

Comment #324: phylosopher  on  07/06  at  11:47 PM

OK, let’s just say those boots had 2-1/4 inch heels, which is a standard height for spike (not stacked) heels.  Or even 1-3/4 inch heels.  THE POINT IS, she was walking briskly in them, over slush, uphill, talking nonstop to the reporter, without stopping for about 4 Alaska-sized blocks to the Capitol building.  With allegedly a 6 month fetus pushing up against her lungs, and down on her bladder (which might make a difference if she drank any of that coffee).

You do know that people do multiple takes, right?  It wasn’t a continuous shot.

They’re not spikes, they’re kitten heels.  And 1-3/4” heels are what I walk in most every day.  Going uphill, they’re not a problem, in fact, they make it so you’re walking more flat-footed than if you were in flats, almost like you’re going up stairs.

What’s with your description the “crotch of her pants”?  Didn’t you look at the video?  Surely you don’t think the person on the right in that picture I posted is Sarah Palin?  Sarah Palin is on the left, and she’s wearing a jacket, a long skirt, and boots.  The GUY on the right is wearing a jacket, pants, flat-heeled boots, and a microphone.  Are you sure you’re a feminist?

Quite sure, thank you.  I was looking at the still shot, and forgot that it was a skirt rather than pants she was wearing, because the skirt is folded in between her legs somewhat, so in isolation it could be baggy pants rather than a skirt.  My error.  But it doesn’t affect my interpretation of the photo.

If you want my honest opinion of where Palin’s pubis (“crotch”) is (I can’t believe we’re discussing this), I’d guess it’s right about the level of the hem of that jacket.  Which would make that inward indentation of her zipper right about where I’d expect a 6-month pregnancy to burgeon OUT.

I locate it around the same area, but if she’s carrying high, she could certainly not bulge out until a point parallel with the level of her right thumb.

Look at the way the bottom of the jacket flares out at the bottom—that’s why you see the zipper line tilting “in” where you wouldn’t expect to, on a straight jacket.  But it’s not straight.  The line of the jacket matches the skirt, it’s sort of a trumpet.

The wind has flattened Palin’s jacket against her body, and you can clearly see that there is NO bulge outward, and the zipper is perfectly vertical.

I disagree.

There is even a right inward-V fold on the right side of her jacket that molds to her body even more than visible on the left.

One of the few things I remember from sewing class is that, when you’re tailoring a garment, if there’s a tight spot, the wrinkles will “point” to it like an arrow.  That’s a “pointer” at her belly!  Which is the “tight spot.”  Even though the whole thing is loose, that’s actually a bulge.

  And yes, you can see the outward curve of Palin’s jacket about where you’d expect breasts to be…
Comment #432: KarenJa on 07/06 at 08:39 PM

At least we agree there.

Comment #325: oldfeminist  on  07/06  at  11:57 PM

But what are her countertops made of?

Comment #326: themann1086  on  07/07  at  12:47 AM

Just a quick note on the end of this- if the pregnancy did end at 37 weeks, that would be entirely unremarkable for a baby with DS. Even slightly earlier. My daughter was born at 41.5 weeks, but that is highly unusual, especially as she was over 8 pounds (the charts for babies with DS didn’t even go that high for newborns).  Comment #373: TheRealistMom on 07/06 at 11:13 AM

It didn’t.

It ALLEGEDLY ended at 35 weeks.  Two weeks before being within the parameters of “term”.

Comment #327: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  12:49 AM

I’m still waiting on your explanation of how the Mole People fit into all of this.

Comment #328: BlackBloc  on  07/07  at  01:26 AM

Also…. Chet: abject lesson in the fact that you can be an atheist and not know what ‘burden of proof’ means.

Comment #329: BlackBloc  on  07/07  at  01:27 AM

I know that none of this will convince anyone of anything, but Levi’s sister has a blog http://www.mercedejohnston.com/

It is mostly about the palins and she is clearly not a fan of sarah. she mentions levi being at Trig’s (sarah’s baby with DS) birth and hanging out with Bristol while she “had mono” (and was not pregnant) in a very casual way, not meant to debunk any conspiracy mongering. She seems to hate the palins and has no problem making them look bad, but doesn’t even hint at any Trig conspiracy. However her hatred could be part of the elaborate ruse to throw the corporate media overlords off the scent—Palin’s power knows no bounds besides forging birth certificates to show concerned citizens.

Comment #330: alysia  on  07/07  at  02:04 AM

You do know that people do multiple takes, right?  It wasn’t a continuous shot. Comment #440: oldfeminist on 07/06 at 10:57 PM

To all appearances, the guy had one cameraman with him…who took some shots from in front of the pair as they walked, and some from in back of them.  (no doubt an unmanned camera was used for the inside few seconds when Palin answered the door, and they filmed the “tour” of the mansion interior later)  The entire walking segment took about 3 minutes—there was no discernible “cut” in the conversation until just before mounting the Capitol steps.

...They’re not spikes, they’re kitten heels…

Enough already about the heels on her boots, OK?

...it could be baggy pants rather than a skirt.  My error.  But it doesn’t affect my interpretation of the photo…

Then you should look at all 7 of the pictures in that set of screen captures—http://tinyurl.com/ygo2lqp

In the 5th picture, there’s a very definite horizontal crease on the left side of Palin’s jacket (our right, her left) about 3-4 inches above the hem where I think her abdomen-meeting-thigh usually hits.  I see a weird blocky bulge above that crease, like she’s wearing a (sleeveless?) down vest under the jacket.  We’ll never know, though, will we?

Frankly, the 6th picture is about as definitive of a non-pregnant Palin as any I’ve ever seen, and in the 7th picture, as she leans forward a bit, do you see anything that can’t be explained by a down vest underneath?

...if she’s carrying high, she could certainly not bulge out until a point parallel with the level of her right thumb.  Look at the way the bottom of the jacket flares out at the bottom—that’s why you see the zipper line tilting “in” where you wouldn’t expect to, on a straight jacket.  But it’s not straight.  The line of the jacket matches the skirt, it’s sort of a trumpet.

Those are good points—for my argument that she’s NOT visibly 6 months pregnant in the video.

One of the few things I remember from sewing class is that, when you’re tailoring a garment, if there’s a tight spot, the wrinkles will “point” to it like an arrow.  That’s a “pointer” at her belly!  Which is the “tight spot.” Even though the whole thing is loose, that’s actually a bulge.

Have you ever seen how Palin layers clothing?  If that’s a bulge, I’m saying it’s a sleeveless down vest under that jacket, possibly even with gloves in the pockets.  After all, it IS February in Alaska.

Comment #331: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  02:28 AM

But idiot or moron aren’t currently used to disparage Down syndrome people, while “retard” and “retarded” are.

But…but…  Is THAT all you have?

“Retard” and “retarded” are ALSO used to disparage perfectly normal, presumably intelligent people.  Neocons have morphed the term into “libtards” and progressives have done the same with “conservitards”. 

A goodly number of “Down syndrome people” have benefitted from prompt and diligent zero-to-3 intensive therapy, and as a result many of them are perfectly capable of criticizing people who they feel have insulted or disparaged them. 

For example the actress Andrea Friedman, who challenged Sarah Palin on her rant about the “Family Guy” episode which made fun of Sarah Palin, but NOT Trig.  Palin tried to turn the joke into an insult of Trig, but Andrea Friedman pushed back with the famous “loaf of French bread” remark.

I loved it.  That was a spunky thing to say—and in response, Palinbots mercilessly attacked Andrea Friedman in return. 

You don’t seem to know where you are.  Let me give you a hint:  calling us “politically correct” doesn’t frighten or dismay us.  And no one here is a Palin fan, let alone a “Palinbot.” She’s a thoroughly unpleasant person with thoroughly unpleasant politics and I don’t think anyone participating here has any love or even respect for her.  Comment #435: oldfeminist on 07/06 at 09:51 PM

Damn!  Coulda fooled me!  After reading the gist of the more than 400 comments on this topic, I thought I was on Politico.  Or AOL Politics.

Comment #332: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  02:30 AM

I doubt very seriously that Mercede or Levi would have been involved with any baby shenanigans.  The only people who had to know what was going on were:

- Sarah
- Todd
- the birth mother or adoption agent
- Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson

Others who probably would have known include:

- Bristol
- Willow
- Thomas Van Flein or an attorney representing the birth mother/adoption agent

Then you have people who possibly might have known what was going on:

- trusted Palin aides
- nurses
- Todd and Sarah’s parents/siblings

In the end, you have people who are family, who are close personal friends, who are bound by various kinds of non-disclosure agreements and who have more to gain from Palin being Vice-President than if they simply sold the story to the National Enquirer.  This isn’t some kind of grand conspiracy that requires hundreds or even dozens of people to stay silent.  A handful of people know and another handful might have noticed something odd going on, but no real idea what.  And some people might know some key bit of information, but be oblivious. 

Mercede Johnston’s comment about seeing Bristol during the mono months probably does mean that Bristol isn’t Trig’s birth mother.  I know a lot of people assumed he had to be Bristol’s if he wasn’t Sarah’s, but that was never the only option.  Considering Palin’s connection with places like the Downtown Pregnancy Center/white baby farm in Dallas, Palin acquiring a Down’s Syndrome baby for political gain is exactly the kind of cynical political ploy I’d expect from a disciple of Bill Kristol.

Comment #333: DarkEFang  on  07/07  at  02:44 AM

She also says this:
Why was Levi at the hospital at 6:00 AM for Trigs birth?
Levi was in a very controlling relationship, and if Bristol wanted him to do something he did it! She wanted him there, so he was there. I also believe that he kind of wanted to be there in order to meet the newborn little brother of his girlfriend/almost fiancé.

http://www.mercedejohnston.com/page/2/

At the very least levi is in on it then. And what about the birth mother—did she hide the pregnancy from everyone, giving birth surrounded by strangers and driving herself to the hospital? Did she fake a late-term miscarriage? Is a fake birth certificate too cynical? Is it the one place palin doesn’t have influence?

Comment #334: alysia  on  07/07  at  03:02 AM

I’m still waiting on your explanation of how the Mole People fit into all of this.

What do you think the “Bridge to Nowhere” was REALLY for? We’re through the looking glass here people…

Comment #335: Mike Crichton  on  07/07  at  03:22 AM

There’s another daughter.  She’s been in plenty of trouble already herself.  Willow.

Comment #336: JennyLI  on  07/07  at  08:49 AM

Although, the out five months with mono thing is really outlandish.  I had mono.  I don’t know how that’s explained.  But I’m not a doctor.  I’d be interested in finding out how a child needs to be kept out of school for five months for mono.  I was out weeks. 

I have to admit this did the opposite of what Amanda intended in my case.  It actually convinced me that there’s more to this than I had thought.  I never really paid much attention other than rolling my eyes over the fabulist’s story about boarding a plane after her water broke.  I mean, that always made me laugh and I never saw how anyone believed it.  But I didn’t really consider that she might have done a switcheroo.

Now that I know more, there’s too much here to dismiss out of hand.  Interesting.  I am starting to understand why she didn’t release her medical records and continues to claim that she did release them.  I thought that was one of her lies for no reason.  Of which she has plenty, being pathological.  Ends up, this may be one of her lies for a reason, of which she also, has plenty.

Comment #337: JennyLI  on  07/07  at  09:02 AM

I can’t believe we’re almost to 500 comments and this this photo  hasn’t been mentioned. This interview was conducted on April 13, 2008. So much for “tight abs.”

Comment #338: Hoyt Pollard  on  07/07  at  10:24 AM

  But idiot or moron aren’t currently used to disparage Down syndrome people, while “retard” and “retarded” are.

But…but… Is THAT all you have?

“Retard” and “retarded” are ALSO used to disparage perfectly normal, presumably intelligent people.

Where do you think it gets its power?  It likens a non-DS person to a DS person.  Many people consider that an insult.

Neocons have morphed the term into “libtards” and progressives have done the same with “conservitards”.

I’ve heard the former a lot; not heard the latter, at least not recently, but that’s probably because the liberal feminist blogs I read don’t put up with that kind of shit.

A goodly number of “Down syndrome people” have benefitted from prompt and diligent zero-to-3 intensive therapy, and as a result many of them are perfectly capable of criticizing people who they feel have insulted or disparaged them.

For example the actress Andrea Friedman, who challenged Sarah Palin on her rant about the “Family Guy” episode which made fun of Sarah Palin, but NOT Trig.  Palin tried to turn the joke into an insult of Trig, but Andrea Friedman pushed back with the famous “loaf of French bread” remark.

I loved it.  That was a spunky thing to say—and in response, Palinbots mercilessly attacked Andrea Friedman in return.

Yes, it was spunky, and the Palinbots can go hang on that one, because all they did was freak out at the idea that an irreverent comedy show had a DS person on it, without taking the time to find out what it was all about. 

But it also didn’t make excuses for calling people “retards” or just change the subject to some other person who just happens to have DS and who acted in a self-interested and intelligent manner.

If there is a DS person reading this, s/he’s free to complain, too. 

But one of the advanced concepts in eliminating bigotry is for everyone to avoid it all the time, not just where “they” can hear it, and for everyone to call it out when it happens, not just the “affected” persons. 

That means when white people congregate and one tells a “Black joke,” another one should say, that wasn’t funny, please stop.  When a group of men gets together and one or two start talking about “the bitchez,” another one should say, that’s bullshit, I don’t want to hear it.

And in a mixed group, someone who’s not of the “affected” group calling it out means the people in the “affected” group don’t feel like they are the only ones with the choice between “say something and be the spoilsport” or “not say anything and feel like shit.”

Comment #339: oldfeminist  on  07/07  at  10:41 AM

And it never crossed anyone’s mind that maybe she doesn’t want to release her medical records because she’s had some plastic surgery, which would conflict with her Real American(tm), regular folk just out moose-huntin’ image? What? I’m just asking questions! Why aren’t we addressing the vast media conspiracy to cover up Sarah’s boob job?

Comment #340: elena  on  07/07  at  11:32 AM

Where do you think it gets its power?  It likens a non-DS person to a DS person.  Many people consider that an insult.  Comment #455: oldfeminist on 07/07 at 09:41 AM

One cannot equate “retard”/“retarded” with “Down Syndrome”.  There are many other disease and disability processes in addition to Down Syndrome that affect a person’s intellectual and/or cognitive and/or communication function…deafness, for example. 

So, when a person who’s suffered brain damage after a severe car accident, or a deaf child, or a person with CP is called a “retard”, your premise seems to be that they have been likened to a DS person.

I would suggest that ALL these people would feel insulted simply because their capabilities, limited though they may be and totally unrelated to DS persons, have been impugned. 

And that it’s entirely possible for a DS person who has received the critical early therapy needed to maximize potential might feel SUPERIOR to these others and, if possessed of a nasty personality (DS folks are like the rest of us, they aren’t all angelic smiling innocents), might join in the insults aimed at those less fortunate.

In other words, “retard” could be construed as an insult by whomever it’s aimed—“retarded”, however, is a legitimate medical term.  Christopher Fairman explains the issue quite nicely in the Washington Post.  And The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry aren’t shy about using the term.

But must we have a Ph.D. or an M.D. after our name to use these words in a non-pejorative manner without being harassed by knee-jerk celebrity politicos or do-gooders?

Comment #341: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  12:07 PM

But one of the advanced concepts in eliminating bigotry is for everyone to avoid it all the time, not just where “they” can hear it, and for everyone to call it out when it happens, not just the “affected” persons.
That means when white people congregate and one tells a “Black joke,” another one should say, that wasn’t funny, please stop.  When a group of men gets together and one or two start talking about “the bitchez,” another one should say, that’s bullshit, I don’t want to hear it.
And in a mixed group, someone who’s not of the “affected” group calling it out means the people in the “affected” group don’t feel like they are the only ones with the choice between “say something and be the spoilsport” or “not say anything and feel like shit.”  Comment #455: oldfeminist on 07/07 at 09:41 AM

I agree, it’s a noble thing to speak up, risking ridicule yourself from the less sophisticated, to attempt to raise the rubes up out of their mob mentality into a higher order of social intercourse.

However, that’s a separate issue from using the term “retarded” in a non-pejorative manner.  And I just don’t see how using “retard” in an insulting manner specifically targets DS people.

Comment #342: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  12:22 PM

KarenJa, you’re not getting it. 

That I didn’t say “it doesn’t just mean DS it means others who are developmentally disabled, too,” only means I don’t cover every single base with every single utterance I make. 

It doesn’t mean that “retarded” doesn’t draw its power from making fun of people who are intellectually or developmentally disabled, or even deaf or blind people who seem “slow” to others.  The primary targets of derision are usually DS people because they are numerous and are usually physically easy to spot.

It’s wrong to make fun of them, it’s wrong to make fun of other developmentally disabled people, and it’s wrong to make fun of people by likening those people to them.

All the articles (by White guys) you can quote bemoaning the loss of great words to “political correctness” won’t change my mind on it.  When they use “niggardly” to try to snarkily get a rise out of a Black audience, I won’t be defending them.

Academic articles like the one you pointed to, which don’t use the term as a form of derision, are irrelevant to your premise.

You’ll just have to live with me as a politically correct feminist.  And you can take my defense of others who aren’t present as presumptuous, or condescending, or anything you like.  It’s not like you’d be the first.

Comment #343: oldfeminist  on  07/07  at  01:15 PM

KarenJa, how about simply listening to it from the point of view of a parent of a child with Down syndrome.

“Retard”, as a verb, means “to slow”. That is the root of why people with developmental disabilities are referred to in medical literature as “mentally retarded”. They do, in fact, learn slower.

In that context, it is acceptable- HOWEVER- it is rarely used now in modern articles or names of organizations. Why? Because common language corrupted it into an insult. When it is used, it is a very specific medical context to refer to people with a certain amount of disability.

In layman’s lingo, it has become pejorative, negative. The same way that “moron” and “idiot” used to be medical terms, but were co-opted into negatives. The difference being, the latter two have had some time to rub the edges off and not have the same amount of impact. “Retarded”, on the other hand, or the worse term “retard” that reduces the person only to their disability, are raw and harsh, and sadly in extremely common use.

As a parent I can read a medical text, or a piece of literature distributed by an organization that deals with persons with developmental disabilities, describing people with Down syndrome or other conditions as “mentally retarded”. It is, indeed, from a diagnosis standpoint, accurate. It is entirely different when a layman refers to “retarded people”, or gets fed up with a video game and calls it “retarded”. Context is everything, and a bit of compassion doesn’t take more than an extra second out of someone’s day.

Comment #344: TheRealistMom  on  07/07  at  01:43 PM

Elena, actually, I did speculate on that, a couple hundred comments ago. I had suggested she perhaps had a “mommy makeover” or tummy tuck. Though I can think of all sorts of potentially embarrassing reasons she didn’t want her medical records made public: perhaps she contracted a STI at one point due to infidelity (either her own or Todd’s), maybe she indeed had an abortion back in the day, maybe she has a genetic disorder that her children don’t know about. Hell, maybe she gets anal fissures. Who knows.

All I know for sure is that she is a liar. Her character is that of someone who is unfit to have any sort of responsibility of any kind. And the media, and her own party, and a large percentage of the population have given her a total pass on it, and that is unacceptable, in my view.

Comment #345: baddesignhurts  on  07/07  at  01:43 PM

baddesignhurts, I was more or less being sarcastic. I don’t think we have the right to know what’s in her medical records, nor do the media need to be concerned with that or this whole babygate nonsense. It’s precisely when the media get involved in pointless gossip mongering when politicians start “getting a pass” on their policy positions. Do I think she’s a liar and a hypocrite? Sure, but that matters to me only because those characteristics manifest in her policies (e.g. anti-choice or pro-abstinence education beliefs). I just really don’t get this investment into proving her maternity or obsession with what could be in her medical history.

Comment #346: elena  on  07/07  at  03:08 PM

The end-of-times contingent see her pregnancy with Trig as some kind of holy sign that she is the one that will lead them to the Rapture.  The pro-life/anti-choice types see her pregnancy with Trig as an example of a politician living according to their beliefs, not just paying it lip service.  These people represent the bulk of Palin’s political base.  They aren’t analyzing Palin’s policy proposals.  She doesn’t have any.  Her political base is dependent on this quasi-holy birth story that she’s concocted.

Comment #347: DarkEFang  on  07/07  at  04:23 PM

It’s wrong to make fun of them, it’s wrong to make fun of other developmentally disabled people, and it’s wrong to make fun of people by likening those people to them.

Yes, it’s wrong to make fun of people.  Period.  It has something to do with being charitable in thought, word, and deed towards others.  Some parents and other relatives of developmentably disabled persons take umbrage, however, at “charity” in whatever form.  I guess that’s THEIR problem, meeting charity with pride headlong.

All the articles (by White guys) you can quote bemoaning the loss of great words to “political correctness” won’t change my mind on it.  When they use “niggardly” to try to snarkily get a rise out of a Black audience, I won’t be defending them.

Gahhh.  The word “niggardly” admittedly isn’t in my personal lexicon, despite having excelled in high school and college in English Comp., and having written down my thoughts for the ensuing 45 years…I’ve just never thought of an appropriate topic in which to use it.  But you’re saying if I hear someone ELSE use it, I should stand up and say, “Tsk!  Naughty!”?  Gosh, where have I been the past 45 years?  No wonder I don’t “get it”.  I don’t even belong to the same sorority as you.

Academic articles like the one you pointed to, which don’t use the term as a form of derision, are irrelevant to your premise.

No.  That’s YOUR premise.  It’s entirely relevant to me.  Perhaps I’m more of an objective academic, and less of a subjective crusader.

Comment #348: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  05:03 PM

“Retard”, as a verb, means “to slow”. That is the root of why people with developmental disabilities are referred to in medical literature as “mentally retarded”. They do, in fact, learn slower.  In that context, it is acceptable…In layman’s lingo, it has become pejorative, negative. The same way that “moron” and “idiot” used to be medical terms, but were co-opted into negatives…Comment #460: TheRealistMom on 07/07 at 12:43 PM

I don’t consider myself technically a “layman”.  I’ve been in the medical support field for most of my adult life.  I’ve never used “idiot”, “moron”, or “retard” as an insult. When I use the word “retarded”, the above verb/adjective (”-ed”) as you outlined is EXACTLY what I mean.

It’s bizarre that a parent of a child with Down syndrome would rant and rave at me if I use a standard medical term in my blogging—but one has.  Perhaps THEY are the ones lacking in…what?  Equanimity?  (the one I’m thinking of is terribly stressed, so I’ve refrained from exacerbating the situation)

I’ve stated dozens of times on a blog I frequent what my past career history is (I wouldn’t expect you to know, until now). 

It’s a little like if I call what I see documented on a medical record a “spontaneous abortion”—but if the person to whom this event happened sees or hears that two-word phrase, they want to sue!  They think the only word to describe it is “miscarriage”—case in point—Sarah Palin, whiting out the word “abortion” on her medical bill and typing over it, “miscarriage” (In her book, she said this occurred—although she insisted the DOCTOR’S OFFICE did the correction, which medically trained people know they never would do).

Perhaps the “laymen” people should pause, think, and find out where someone else is “coming from” before they jump all over them and vilify them and condemn them.

Comment #349: KarenJa  on  07/07  at  05:33 PM

But you’re saying if I hear someone ELSE use it, I should stand up and say, “Tsk!  Naughty!”?  Gosh, where have I been the past 45 years?  No wonder I don’t “get it”.  I don’t even belong to the same sorority as you.
Comment #464: KarenJa on 07/07 at 04:03 PM

No, I wouldn’t recommend that tone.  I’m talking about the kind of person who would smirkily use it around Black people hoping they would take offense so s/he could then instruct them that they’re being hypersensitive and stupid to boot.

If you do encounter someone using a word that’s offensive, asking a question like “why did you call her a retard” works pretty well.  Usually people know better and correct themselves if they realise they can’t get away with it around you.  Maybe that won’t change their minds, but at least you probably won’t have to hear it any more, and they’ll get the message that there really are people out there who don’t think a joke means snickering behind other people’s backs.

By the way, I don’t belong to any sorority, never did, went to a State school and I’m working in technology, mostly with men, most of whom I like and get along with pretty well.  I’m not really impressed with your now-repeated efforts to paint me as some kind of ivory-tower academic, especially since I’m not one. 

Is there some reason you responded to me, and not the actual parent of an actual DS child?  Maybe because you couldn’t tell that parent “Some parents and other relatives of developmentably disabled persons take umbrage, however, at “charity” in whatever form.” 

I doubt there are a lot of DS parents who would say, no, please, use “retarded” as an insult, holding back would be an insult to me and my child.

Comment #350: oldfeminist  on  07/07  at  05:35 PM

I’ve never used “idiot”, “moron”, or “retard” as an insult. When I use the word “retarded”, the above verb/adjective (”-ed”) as you outlined is EXACTLY what I mean.
Comment #465: KarenJa on 07/07 at 04:33 PM

Really?

I just don’t see how using “retard” in an insulting manner specifically targets DS people.
Comment #458: KarenJa on 07/07 at 11:22 AM

Bye.

Comment #351: oldfeminist  on  07/07  at  05:40 PM

Chet says:  Did it ever cross your mind that baseless speculation isn’t evidence?

OMG!  Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Comment #352: bystander  on  07/07  at  06:46 PM

OMG!  Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Why are you laughing?

Comment #353: Shevek57  on  07/07  at  07:25 PM

Tell us, oldfeminist, how much time does it take out of what must be a very leisurely life to be the language police?  Do you have a list like Carlin’s “Seven words you can’t say on TV,” the long, scroll version?  Do you language police have quotas?  Is that for usage of agreed upon verboten words (is verboten verboten, because of its German origins, shades of Nazism, or now mocking Germans?)  or does it count only if said with a Sargent Schultz accent? Or do you need to add words to the list to fill your quota?  Do you language police have a monthly meeting to decide on verboten words?  Or have you gone rogue, making up your own fauxrage whenever you want?

ANd how many of you are in on the secret plan?  You know, the one to kill wit and humor or make people so damn self-conscious, you have effectively become Vonnegut’s Handicapper General. 

Ooooh, gee I used a derivative of “handicap”  how many lashes for that one?

Comment #354: phylosopher  on  07/07  at  08:07 PM

More seriously, after my 2 flippant posts, bullshit like this, anti-vaxxers, and Truthers keep me humble and remind me that political ideology is no defense against believing insane theories.

Comment #355: themann1086  on  07/07  at  10:13 PM

I for one want to know when Chet stopped blowing goats.  Sure, Chet’s defenders have imagined dozens of farmers they can’t name that would testify that Chet has never sexually molested their goats, but they can’t even name them.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

Comment #356: themann1086  on  07/07  at  10:16 PM

She’s under the impression, I’m sure, that “baseless speculation” is what I’ve been doing in this thread, when exactly the opposite is true.

You’ve just speculated that I’m a “She”.

Comment #357: bystander  on  07/07  at  10:46 PM

I guess I was wrong.  I guess phylosopher is afraid to be called “politically correct.”  Don’t worry, I won’t tar you with that brush any more.

Comment #358: oldfeminist  on  07/08  at  12:22 AM

I’ve specifically refrained from speculation, . . .

Yes, I know.

Comment #359: Shevek57  on  07/08  at  12:35 AM

Ooohhh gee, and here I was plucking the goose, getting ready for our next rendezvous, Oldfem but now you’re not bringing the tar…aaawwww.

Comment #360: phylosopher  on  07/08  at  01:19 AM

What, no one called me a hypocrite for using “tar”?  I guess another shiny thing went by.

<weeps in corner, ignored>

Comment #361: oldfeminist  on  07/08  at  11:10 AM

The difference is that Amanda, and you, are endorsing a standard of journalism that says “you know what? On stuff like this, we’re going to knowingly let public figures lie.”

You just made a positive claim… previously, you argued that Sarah Palin had not sufficiently proven that she is Trig’s mother.  That since she made the positive clim, she’s the one who had to prove her case.

But you are now making a positive claim.  You aren’t merely arguing that Palin hasn’t proven her maternity, you are arguing that she is in fact lying about her maternity.  It’s not the same argument.  You are making a positive assertion - Sarah Palin has lied about being Trig’s mother.  That’s not the same as “Sarah Palin has not proven that she is Trig’s mother.”

So prove to me that she is lying.  And the fact that she has been proven to lie about other matters does not confirm that she is lying about this.

You say she’s lying about being Trig Palin’s mother.  Prove it.

Comment #362: DTGslu2K  on  07/08  at  08:17 PM

Really? [...]  Bye.  Comment #467: oldfeminist on 07/07 at 04:40 PM

Had to have the last word, did you?  Too bad it was totally devoid of substance.

Comment #363: KarenJa  on  07/09  at  01:09 AM

You just made a positive claim… previously, you argued that Sarah Palin had not sufficiently proven that she is Trig’s mother.  That since she made the positive clim, she’s the one who had to prove her case.
But you are now making a positive claim.  You aren’t merely arguing that Palin hasn’t proven her maternity, you are arguing that she is in fact lying about her maternity.  It’s not the same argument.  You are making a positive assertion - Sarah Palin has lied about being Trig’s mother.  That’s not the same as “Sarah Palin has not proven that she is Trig’s mother.”
So prove to me that she is lying.  And the fact that she has been proven to lie about other matters does not confirm that she is lying about this.
You say she’s lying about being Trig Palin’s mother.  Prove it.
Comment #481: Murrow Fan on 07/08 at 07:17 PM

Wow, you’ve just screwed up your own argument big time.  The problem we Palin/Trig skeptics have—Andrew Sullivan and the entire pantheon of hundreds of Palingates regular commenters/contributors included—is that we all indeed believe as you do that Sarah Palin is Trig’s mother—we just don’t believe that she is Trig’s BIOLOGICAL mother.  There is a huge difference there, as any foster mother, any adoptive mother, any grandmother raising a grandchild will tell you.

The ball’s in the Barracuda’s court.  So far she’s been called on fouls.  I’m hoping that by the time Geoffrey Dunn’s book and Joe McGinniss’s book are published, she’s fouled out of the game, because she’ll NEVER prove her biologic connection to Trig; she just can’t, and won’t.

Comment #364: KarenJa  on  07/09  at  01:21 AM

Wow, you’ve just screwed up your own argument big time.  The problem we Palin/Trig skeptics have—Andrew Sullivan and the entire pantheon of hundreds of Palingates regular commenters/contributors included—is that we all indeed believe as you do that Sarah Palin is Trig’s mother—we just don’t believe that she is Trig’s BIOLOGICAL mother.  There is a huge difference there, as any foster mother, any adoptive mother, any grandmother raising a grandchild will tell you.

Okay, very simple fix.

You are all claiming that Sarah Palin is lying about being Trig’s biological mother. This is a positive claim, and one for which you have no proof.

Given the choices between:

- Sarah Palin was pregnant, didn’t show much, had a child with Down’s syndrome, told some wild stories about flying in labor to make herself look good

and

- Sarah Palin was not pregnant, claimed she was, adopted a child with Down’s syndrome in total secrecy, and despite her history of pissing off the little people around her, no one has come forward to sell a story to the media, so she has maintained a great deal of control over this conspiracy

option A is the one that makes more logical sense. In the absence of any evidence beyond Palin’s own claims to have been pregnant, option A *still* makes more logical sense. For an extraordinary claim like “a woman is lying about her pregnancy, and secretly adopted a baby”—a much, much more uncommon occurrence in human experience than “a middle-aged woman has a baby with Down’s”—extraordinary proof would need to be presented. Thus far absolutely no one has presented *any* proof that Trig is not Palin’s biological child, only speculation based on dubious “proof” that she couldn’t have been pregnant… except that none of the “proof” that she wasn’t pregnant is strong enough to make her pregnancy story anywhere *near* as unlikely as the story that she lied and then adopted a baby in secret. That’s just… not something people generally do. Whereas having a tummy tuck which causes your pregnancy to be compressed into your body so you don’t look very pregnant? Absolutely something vain people do, and Palin is vain.

It’s laughable that the people presenting an argument that a woman did a *very* unusual and frankly irrational thing, and arranged a conspiracy to cover it up, are acting as if *they* have the more logical and reasonable argument over people who think that a woman did something as normal as have a baby. When you are claiming that a human did something that humans do all the damn time, you have more ground to stand on than when you are claiming that a human did something that humans very, very rarely do. The “positive” claim, the claim that requires active proof or at least proof to a high standard, is the one that suggests that a more unusual thing happened. This is always true.

Given the alternatives “there was a conspiracy” and “there was no conspiracy”, if there is no proof of either, “no conspiracy” is always more likely. Given the alternatives “a person’s statement that a common thing happened to them is true” and “a person’s statement that a common thing happened to them is false”, if there is no proof of either, “true” is always more likely even if the person is a pathological liar. This doesn’t mean that there are never conspiracies or that people never lie about common things happening to them, but it means that the burden of proof for those options is *higher*.

A baby exists. Either he is Sarah Palin’s biological son, or he is Sarah Palin’s adopted son who was adopted in secrecy. Palin claims he is her biological son. Either she is telling the truth or she is lying. If he is not her biological son, then he *is* her adopted son who was adopted in secrecy and there *was* a conspiracy to cover it up and she *is* lying, as are other people. Both claims require proof. If neither claim has any proof, the more likely claim is the one that he is her biological son; thus the claim that he is not requires *extraordinary* proof, beyond “well, she didn’t show much and she was dumb to get on an airplane if she was heavily pregnant!” Since no extraordinary proof has been presented, the more likely claim remains: Palin was pregnant and gave birth to Trig.

The “positive” claim is the more extraordinary one, the one that is less likely given human behavior and our knowledge of how stuff works on this planet… and given the number of women who give birth without showing much versus the number of women who adopt in secret and then lie about it and successfully maintain that lie despite being under intense media scrutiny, the extraordinary claim is that Trig is *not* Palin’s biological child.

Comment #365: Alara J Rogers  on  07/09  at  11:09 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.