Andrew Sullivan's Two Options

Andrew Sullivan wrote in "The Day Trig Was Born," in part:

... It seems to me we have two options. It's possible that Palin simply made up her drama of labor, or exaggerated it for effect, when in fact it was a routine, if rare, pregnancy, and she had mild warnings that the birth may be premature, and she gussied that up into a tall tale of her pioneer spirit, guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT's calls as soon as Palin hit the big time. I think that's the likeliest explanation, given the sheer world-historical weirdness of the alternative.

But it's also possible that she never had that baby at all. I mean, if you read the emails and independent reports above and were asked if this woman were in labor with a special needs child, and that her water had already broken, would you believe it? Just put all the facts in front of you and ask yourself that question. ...

Sullivan recognizes that it is possible that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin and even states that it is likely that she did. I agree with him, because no one has proven that she did not. Like Sullivan, I am inclined to believe that what has commonly been called the "wild ride" -- the trip from Texas to Alaska just before the birth -- is nothing more than a tall tale; however, I would not go so far as to say, like Sullivan, that Palin told the story, "guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT's calls as soon as Palin hit the big time."

The "investigation" into the "faked pregnancy" is like one done by The Keystone Cops. It is completely amateurish. The "investigators" don't obtain original, source material; for example, in "Sarah Palin and The Neonatologist - Part Two - POW!" a poorer picture was used than one that is available at the L.A. Times; one attributed to an Associated Press photographer, by name!

All of the "photo proof" -- one way or the other -- should have been analyzed by a professional, who would have asked the photographers questions like: What was the lighting? How far away were you from the subject? Which camera was used? What was the focal length of the lens? What size is the camera's sensor? ... . And a professional investigator would have asked for the pixels from the camera, knowing that news organizations often tweak a photo in order to get publishable contrast and color values.

Some will say, "Look! Here's a photo showing that she wasn't pregnant;" ignoring or dismissing photos that tell a different story; and ignoring a very important fact: If you added up the exposure times of all the photos taken of Palin during that time, they probably wouldn't amount to an hour out of her life, if that. It typically takes less -- much less than -- one second to take a photo. There are 3600 seconds in an hour.

Well! Believe it or not! I'm a neonatologist now, too. I've written about a newborn.

Major babygate blogger going soft?

Yesterday afternoon (pacific time), "Kathleen" of the blog politicalgates posted an article in the UK Guardian's Comment is free/America section, asserting as fact that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy. The last paragraph began:

Sarah Palin's pregnancy hoax is relevant, ...

The same article was posted at the politicalgates blog, but shortly after the post went up the Guardian pulled its post, apparently out of libel concerns. The post was re-worded, at the Guardian and at the blog, with the beginning of the last paragraph changed to:

The questions about Sarah Palin's pregnancy are relevant, ...

At the time of this writing, the Guardian has pulled its post again.

The post as it currently appears at politicalgates is here. The post may reappear at the Guardian; if it does, it may be found here.

politicalgates bloggers have in the past asserted as fact that Palin faked a pregnancy, and "Patrick" has even challenged Palin to sue him, so, although it's understandable that the blogger would alter the text of the post at the Guardian in consideration of the Guardian's concerns, it isn't clear why she should soften the post on her own blog.

Update: Legally, a reason to soften the post is that the writer cannot prove that Palin faked a pregnancy.

Update: The post at the Guardian is back (link above).

Update: Part of politicalgates' post echoes Professor Sharlott's concern about a "spiral of silence." I think that the back-and-forth between the Guardian and politicalgates refutes the notion that a "spiral of silence" exists. I think that the Guardian was being prudent rather than part of a "spiral of silence" when it required the change to the last paragraph. As I've written before, if people could prove that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy, the story (stated as fact) would be everywhere.

Perhaps it would be better to say that there has been a "spiral of prudence." Has politicalgates become part of it? In any event, they've apparently had an earful of professional legal advice.

Update: The Guardian/politicalgates post makes the statement, "Palin could end the public discussion immediately by presenting hard evidence, such as hospital or insurance records," ignoring the fact that the burden of proof isn't Sarah Palin's. What they're essentially saying is: "We can't prove that you weren't (pregnant), so you prove that you were." Is it any wonder that such a jailhouse lawyer's argument should be met with scorn and laughter?

Update: The politicalgates/Guardian post states: "This statement [that her water had broken in Texas] by Sarah Palin was the trigger for scepticism on the part of some journalists regarding Palin's birth story, as well as the start of investigations by bloggers and citizens."

Yes, I do recall that this motivated the investigation by "Audrey" of Palin's Deceptions; however, the writer ignores part of what Professor Sharlott wrote:

... Palin thus seemingly confirmed that her water broke in Texas, although her answer was sufficiently muddled that one might argue otherwise. ... [emphasis added]

.

Can Sarah Palin Dance?

Last Saturday, I opened a new front in the war on Sarah Palin by questioning her ability to dance.

This picture purports to show her dancing at her inaugural ball in 2007; however, we still aren't certain she can dance.

The picture is but one moment out of the many moments that comprise Sarah Palin's life. Unless we see additional photo evidence, we cannot be sure that she was actually in motion -- dancing -- when the picture was taken. And we would like a lot of other information about any pictures that may appear: camera make, focal length of the lens, distance from camera to subject, camera angle, lighting ... the list goes on.

Of course, Sarah must have been irked by our doubts. Now she may be scheming to prove she can dance by showing us video. How? By dancing on Dancing With the Stars!

Yes! In "Will Another Palin Go 'Dancing' Next Season?" I was amazed to read:

Sources tell me that Sarah Palin had such a fantastic not-booed-at time on 'Dancing With The Stars' Monday night that she's itchin' to return to the ballroom herself next season.

"Sarah was overwhelmed with what a great time she had at the show," an insider who was at the show tells me. "In fact she enjoyed herself so much that she mentioned to producers who greeted her that she would be open to competing herself next season."

But until we see it, we'll remain doubtful that she can dance.

---

Afterword

Fight fire with fire: one conspiracy theory with another?

It happened serendipitously. I doubted Sarah could dance out of mean-girl orneriness. After I hit 'Publish Post,' I remembered that there was a picture of her dancing at the inauguration, so I posted it in the comments, along with a babygate-style argument.

"Babygate" is a dead issue. Its loss may disappoint, even anger, some, especially Sarah Palin. It was her oxygen: whether she talked about it or her enemies did, it rallied her fans.

---