Sarah Palin is a man! (or Hookers & Blow)

[McCain & Bush celebrate John's birthday on August 29, 

2005 as the country feels the brunt of Katrina.  Fun!]  ---->

I worked at Mojo 13 last night and it was QUIET on accountta the holiday.  So I was sitting alone at the bar, watching tv, and happened across the O'Reilly program, which I generally attempt to avoid.  

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I was intrigued by his forthcoming OUTRAGE at the Sarah Palin situation, or at the least the "slanderous" things being said about "her" baby Trig

on such "terrible" sites as the Daily Kos.

He really was as angry as I've ever seen him (well, except for that one time) calling the Daily Kos all sorts of despicable names.  I thought he was gonna have a heart attack.

So I  looked into it when I got home, to see just what had been posted that was so bad.  

Turns out, all the rage is that Palin is actually a man.  Also, she is actually McCain's "love child" that George Bush spoke of, in slandering McCain in South Carolina

back in 2000.  She has a tail, and a virulent case of Campylobacteriosis

So it was with candor and caution that Charlie Rose broke the subject tonight, asking his distinguished panel if they saw "any other shoe falling any time?"

Mark Halperin responded that the right had reacted especially harshly and swiftly to the outrageous allegations, condemning, vigorously, specific reporters and writers.

I have to ask myself why they reacted so aggressively.  I wasn't even interested in the story until they reported their outrage.  

So I looked into it, and while it turns out that it is entirely likely and probable that Sarah Palin's baby Trig is actually, in fact, her son, and not her daughter's first (with a second one now on the way) it is also a very shady situation!

Allegations:

 Her daughter missed 5-7 months of school due to "mono"  (The kissing disease....I wonder if that is how it really got its name) during the time her "mother" was "pregnant. (Brendan leads the way, via Annika, to this funny site about quotes)

There are a number of pictures now pulled from their original sites, including THIS one provided by an unnamed source which purportedly shows Mrs. Palin in the hospital shortly after giving birth, and shortly before returning to work only a couple days later.  Does she look like a woman who has just given birth?

The friend of the family who posted this on Myspace had it labeled "Mommyinlaw Trig myself."

Strange to say the least.  

Furthermore, there is the whole additional fact that upon allegedly having her water break, she proceeded to give her speech and fly back to Alaska before giving birth.   This despite obvious dangers and flight restrictions.

But here she is looking super preggo, sorta.

Other pics, including one I can't seem to dredge up anymore (it's on the Video below with the guy in the black hat) paint a similarly disharmonious picture.  

The easy argument out, of course, is that the girl is now 5 months pregnant and the baby is four, so it cannot be hers.  But we shall have to see what comes forward.  

The only reason I am intrigued, essentially, is because the first thing I thought upon learning 

she had that baby in April was "she does not look like she had a baby five months ago!" and 

 the good people of Alaska (and her entire office) felt the same way before Triggy was born.

Even Gwenyth & Gwen have post birth baby bumps, and they are PAID to lose em, not run an "executive" office.  

At least we know either way it runs in the family. 

But this whole idea that they are "getting married" is absurd.  They are 17 year old kids.  Forcing them to get married because of this may only serve to make things worse in the end.  

This all does not reflect well on McCain's vetting process.  While he did apparently know about the new Palin pregnancy before making his decision, he did not, allegedly, reach out to her former brother-in-law, involved in a troopergate investigation against her.  

Here is s a harsh McCain/Romney assesment.

Hookers & Blow @ the Republican convention.

these Alaskans sure are pleasant people, aren't they???



George W. Bush karaoke!

Steven Wright has some funny things to say about the whole thing.

One of Bill Maher's "New Rules" this week was something to the effect of:

"You can't use windmills in your campaign ads if you have voted against every bill that could have allowed any to be built."

This is validated in a T. Friedman article from a couple of weeks back. 

Maher goes on to talk about how (adulterous, treacherous, offensive, hypocritical  [my words]) John Edwards, whose smarminess just seems to rub me the wrong way (especially since I think that baby's his) did NOT get to speak at the convention.  

This is justified, save for the IMPORTANT fact that John Edwards is a champion of the poor for the Democrats.  I always sort of felt like he took up this mantle as a way to ride straight to the White House, but even so, he has taken up the mantle.  

As Maher described, without Edwards there, no one spoke passionately of the increasing gap between rich and poor, the decimation of the middle class, or the fact that the top 1% of America's wealthiest earn 21.2% of income.  

To be fair to Mr. Bush, this is a generally bi-partisan issue, as if you look at the graph to the right, it is clear that during the Clinton years the wealth gap increased just about as much, if not more, than during the first four years of Mr. Bush's Presidency.  

However, the Clinton wealth gap arose during a time of unique economic growth, spurned on by internet millionaires (& billionaires) made overnight.  The Bush rise comes from extensive tax cuts to the wealthy, while loose economic policies (some implemented by Clinton, perhaps) have allowed predatory lenders to poach the accounts of the poorest and middle-classest Americans.  

Also to be considered, these are the newest numbers available, from 2005.  Who KNOWS what the present numbers look like.  Something tells me that the line has not steadied or declined, but rather continued to shoot upward.  

Read this from late last year.