Blog notes from litbrit

Good evening everyone.  I wanted to let you know that I've finally figured out how to marshal TypePad's insubordinate HTML gnomes and get them to do my bidding.  And that means we've finally added some must-read blogs to our Blogroll (<--- on that side) and updated the About the Authors page (over there --->).

On a personal note, I've taken a fair bit of flack this week, both in my e-mail box as well as in posts and comments at a couple of blogs I'd previously assumed to be more interested in holding politicians accountable than protecting themselves from criticism.  I refer to my recent posts about the strange circumstances surrounding the birth of Sarah Palin's fifth child--the story of which I firmly believe was, and is still, an incredible, outrageous, and largely unchallenged hoax--and the ongoing media and blog blackout pertaining thereto.

Mostly, though, I've had tremendous encouragement for "going there", because so few people seem to want to, citing such reasons as "it's not important"--as you know, I've argued it most certainly is--to "it's wrong to pry into such personal matters", which I will continue to argue were no longer personal or private when ex-governor Palin, on Day One and repeatedly thereafter, invoked the whole matter of her pregnancy and childbirth experiences in the course of building her pro-life/fundie bona fides, which, as it turned out, would pretty much be the extent of her political bona fides, period.  (If you doubt this, Google Palin policy accomplishments, Palin legislative achievements, or even Palin educational background.)

I think Sir C. said it best in an e-mail to me this afternoon, responding to one of mine in which I lamented the aforementioned piling-on of nastiness:

Obviously this is perilous territory and you're sticking your neck out on a subject that is very uncomfortable for a lot of people on the left.

He's right--I am sticking my neck out.  Well, now I am.  Because while I have followed the story since the day of Palin's selection, until last week, I had not addressed the headache-inducing mess of a story known as "Babygate", mostly because I kept thinking that surely a reporter with a far greater platform than mine---this blog, and litbrit--would do it for me.  (And to date, only Andrew Sullivan has done so, and done so alone,  and received enormous amounts of criticism for it, too.)  I kept thinking someone at the New York TImes or MSNBC would finally expose this dishonest woman and farce of a politician who, to my disgust, has been allowed to pull off one hell of a deception with regard to her fifth baby, a special needs child who had no say in any of this, and do it seemingly without reproach from any major source.  Palin continues to parade her children and grandchildren on stages actual and electronic, as she has from the start, alternately using them as human shields, props, sales tools, and publicity magnets.  And raking in the millions all the while.

But while I believe this is a story worth following as closely as I can, and reporting on as well as I can, given the resources I have to work with--and with this strange story as with any other, I am, and will always be, careful to indicate when it's something I suspect, something I know, or something I can prove--I am nonetheless extremely sensitive to the fact that my co-bloggers here might not want to share in the delightful heaps of scorn, conspiracy-theory-nut accusations, and ridicule that I have been served of late.

Even so, many readers clearly find the dualing subjects at hand--that of the media's obeisance to right-wing power and the disturbing, tentacular nature of the fraud itself--as fascinating and important as I do.

A compromise, then.  One that comes from me and me alone, by the way--there were no mean, threatening, or disparaging e-mails from my fellow Cogblog writers, quite the opposite--and one that I think will keep everyone happy while sparing those who are made so terribly uncomfortable by it all.  I will continue to write my bits and pieces about the Palin fraud (and related matters) over at litbrit, and I'll put the links to any new posts in a brief link-dump post here.  That way, those who remain interested, and who wish to read or contribute to the discussions, can click through (and no, this isn't a ploy to direct traffic to my personal blog--as is the policy here at Cogitamus, I have no advertisers and I accept no donations, so there.)

If you're so inclined, you may now follow me Down the rabbit hole.

I wish you all a lovely, restorative evening.

XXX

DNT

Comments

[Greg]

Librit, I'm usually one of those lurkers who just reads and doesn't contribute (and proud to do so!) But I just wanted to chime in that I support you wholeheartedly on this issue and encourage you to keep investigating and blogging about it. Oh, and you should just post 'em here cuz it's a pain in the ass to have to schlep all the way to your blog to read it. ;D

Cheers,

[Edmund in Tokyo]

If you're wondering why nobody seems to be following you down the rabbit hole, it's because you've put the URL in the "title" attribute of the link instead of the "URL" attribute.

Try this:
http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/down-rabbit-hole-where-things-continue.html

[litbrit]

Thanks, Greg. I appreciate your de-lurking to say that, and hopefully, you won't get too exhausted!

[litbrit]

Ha! Thanks, Edmund--I will fix that now. It's late, and I am somewhat HTML-ed out for the day.

[Ron Zucker]

Like Greg, I am decloaking for this comment.

I'm not too sure how I feel about the Uterus Dome Scandal. (I tire of everything getting a -gate ending, so I'm trying to bring Teapot Dome back to the discussion.) I think the point you make, that, at least, there is no way she traveled as she claims while in labor, is valid, and it seems strange that nobody seems to be willing to challenge her on it.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I really care THAT much. She lies? As Claude Rains famously said, "I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to find that gambling is going on in here."

As you point out, it's as much a part of her pro-life bona fides for many as military service in the case of some other politicians. So it's not like I don't see the point. And if she were to decide to run again, I'd like to see it investigated this time.

But for her as a commentator? Her celebrity comes from running, which, no matter what the truth about Trig, she certainly did. It's not Trig that makes her a celebrity, so I have a hard time caring about Trig.

And it's not any lies about the birth that makes her a complete ninny. It sometimes seems like caring about this is like noticing that Rush Limbaugh uses poor grammar. All the terrible things rushing out of her mouth, and we are going to pay attention to this???

But the most important thing is that you find it important, and that nobody should shut you up for that. I'm glad your blogmates were supportive. I read your stuff because I want to know what you think, whether or not I agree about the importance. So thank you for following up, and good luck.

[Crissa]

I don't envy your investigation, but I think it's worthy. Which is prolly why us lefties are so easily taken in by fake investigations, because we think everything should be transparent.

[litbrit]

we think everything should be transparent.

Yeah, that's true--at least, everything to do with people who either hold high office, or want to.

We lefties feel the press ought to be an independent organ, a presence that keeps the wealthy and powerful in check by disseminating information to everyone in service of something that, in a democracy, is supposed to be more powerful yet than wealth or position: the will of the people.

Whereas the right wing tend to regard the press as an organ of propaganda. A meme-spewing machine.

We suspect; they genuflect.

(And if I ever write something so baldly Maureen Dowd-like ever again, someone please take me outside and throw me to the alligators currently swimming in the lake.)

[Toast]

Deb, I've read your posts on this subject with some mild interest. It does seem like a pretty transparent bit of chicanery that Palin pulled off, and I'd enjoy seeing her exposed for it. So to all the people heaping scorn on you (hold on a sec while I warm up Jon Stewart's gospel choir):

Go FUCK yourselves!
(Yeah!)
Go FUCK yourselves!
(Can I get a witness?)
Go FUCK yourselves!

There, that's better.

Now, that said (or sung), I also have to say it's hard for me to muster a ton of enthusiasm for this particular mission. Even if you could produce a smoking gun - absolutely incontrovertible evidence of Palin's deception - do you really think it would matter? "Mainstream" journalists would quickly bury the story, because hideous personal hypocrisy is only interesting when Democrats are involved. The right would either a.) Continue to deny the truth, or b.) Rally around Palin as the martyr/victim she so longs to be, or c.) Do both a and b, because intellectual consistency isn't really high on their list of priorities. I mean, look, our ex vice president is a war criminal who instituted a torture regime and yet, last I checked, he is still allowed - no, encouraged - to spread his zombie lies about Saddam having links to al Qaeda both in print and on television. Things like that make it hard to get worked up about a dimwitted former half-term governor and her screwed up family.

[tata]

Time for you to write another book, Deborah. A few years from now, someone will publish the whole story, Might as well be you, yes?

[Sungold]

I hope you will keep posting at least the links on Cogitamus. I've been linking to you - my readership is small, but skeptical and critical, and lots of my readers blog, too. Seems to me we should give Palin every opportunity to discredit herself before 2012 rolls around.

[litbrit]

Thank you, Sungold--it's amazing that some of the nastiest critics (of what I've been trying to unearth and write about) have been the ones who call themselves skeptics! As I was taught in JM school, the press is supposed to treat everything they're told with skepticism, more so when the story is told by a person in power. Palin's stories, every one of them, are full of holes. Utterly riddled with them. A handful of people are sticking their necks out and saying, Whoa, not so fast--this is bullshit! And being exactly that: skeptical, as they should be. But somehow we're the ones living in fantasy land and they are now the skeptics?! And you gotta love their excuse: because it makes liberals look bad. Or else, it's sexist. Or else, it's too icky to discuss pregnancy and childbirth matters (never mind that Palin is the one who put it all out there, and journalists are supposed to act on the gaping holes in the story and follow the facts wherever they lead).

We should indeed step up the skepticism--the real skepticism--long before 2012.

I will, when I have anything new to offer, place links here. In the meantime, at least everyone knows where I stand.

Tata, I think there are several people already tackling that topic (but thanks for the vote of confidence), and besides, ironically, I am actually busy outlining a fiction novel (well, revising an outline I already did and wasn't happy with). Fiction, hahahahahaha! You're right: the work on a Palin book is kind of halfway done.

Seriously, I shall look forward to Joe McGinnis' book. I believe Geoffery Dunn (SP?) has one coming out soon, too.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

litbrit -

I don't think your efforts here are misguided, biased or wrong, but I do think they are probably ineffectual. You cannot convince someone of the illogic of their position who has not arrived at that position by logic.

I think people who adore Palin do so for some obscure psychological reason, and that in reality they are few in number.

She is a pathological liar, there is little doubt about that, embellishing her malappropriate attire at the Belmont stakes with patently false claims is just one example of recent memory.

Here's an example of a q&a of Palin by some hypothetical responsible reporter: Mrs. Palin, you have been characterized as an "energy expert", particularly with respect to the big gas pipline project from Alaska to Canada. Can you tell me what the equivalent is in BTUs to 1 million cubic feet of gas?

I agree that the whole birth of Trig story is creepy, just his name alone is creepy, why not name him John? But the ultimate point is really to destroy that house of cards that is her credibility on matters of real concern. Somebody please, ask her what a molecule is.