When I was Living There...

On July 9th, Levi Johnston gave a press conference in his lawyer's office in Alaska.

He states clearly and explicitly that he was living with the Palins before she was selected as McCain's running mate. What? BEFORE late August 2008? Why would he be living there then?

1. He's lying. Palin's spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, has already released a statement claiming this.

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skills," Palin family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

The Palins have steadfastly denied that Levi ever "lived" with them, though it's been reported in numerous publications, including People magazine, which has over the months tended to be quite favorable to Palin.

2. He's telling the truth. So why would he have been living with the Palins prior to August 2008? Because they liked Levi and were cool about Levi and Bristol's relationship and openly allowed their daughter's boyfriend to spend the night? OR Because Levi and Bristol were jointly caring for a child who was not born on December 27, 2008?

Since Levi began going public in spring of 2009, thing just have not added up. There have been lots of little slip-ups. Sherry Johnston described to People magazine on (or around) January 5th how Levi and Bristol had spent their first "weeks" as parents. Only problem was that, as of January 5th, Tripp supposedly was barely a week old, had not even been home from the hospital a full week, and simultaenously the Anchorage Daily News was reporting that Levi was not even IN Wasilla.

When Levi was describing to Larry King how they told Sarah that Bristol was pregnant, he very clearly slips up and starts to say she was sixteen... then quickly corrects it to say "eighteen." Except she was neither, IF the Tripp pregnancy was "as reported." If Tripp was born December 27th 2008, and Levi stayed with the Palins to care for him, Bristol would have been 17 when she got pregnant. Here's the video... watch to around the four minute point. Look at Levi's eyes when he makes the slip up. He knows exactly what he said.



It's been stated in numerous places that Levi was actively involved with the Palins after the campaign right up until after Tripp's birth in late December. But then other places, Levi has stated that things started to fall apart "right after the campaign." And when Sarah Palin was interviewed in her home by Matt Lauer on November 11th, he asks her point blank about Levi and Bristol's plans. She won't even answer the question and is so cold to the topic that it's as if a door has slammed. It's more than clear that things were already off - way off - between Bristol and Levi as of that point. Yet ... he lived there - in December - prior to Tripp's birth?

Things that make you go HMMMM...

How to Lie with Statistics: Response to Progressive Alaska Part 2

With Sarah Palin's resignation, the direction of this blog has taken a temporary detour. It has been impossible over the last five days to keep the focus on "Babygate," and ignore the larger implications of her resignation and the "hoopla" surrounding it. And I don't think anyone wants me to.

Is Sarah Palin still a viable national entity? I do not believe so. Her history of quitting is quite striking: she quit as mayor of Wasilla to run for Lt. Governor of Alaska (a race she lost.) She quit a major Alaskan appointment, that of chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Although a great deal has been made of this "protest" resignation, the reasoning is eerily similar to her resignation as governor. She could be more effective from outside of the commission than actually on it. But numerous people in Alaska have put a more mundane spin on this resignation. The job was reportedly a real full-time job with real full-time work. She was expected to produce, not just be a figurehead; she just was not up to it.

And now - with a year and a half left as governor she quit for reasons that she stated as mostly personal: things like adults being mean to Trig. (Whether her stated reasons are all there are is of course open for question, but for now let's take her at her word.)

But that still leaves us with the initial question of this blog, and as I said in the "Sarah Quits; We Won't" post several days ago, I do not intend to let this issue slide. I believe that there still is enough of a chance that Palin might emerge on the national stage that the truth about Trig's birth must come to light, once and for all. I still believe that the elements of the Republican Party that gave us Sarah Palin and kept her on the ticket (while - I strongly suspect - becoming aware at some point in the campaign that she had faked the pregnancy) must be held accountable.

I am continuing now with the multi-part post I began last week, before the resignation, in which I am attempting to consider a very long post written by Lee Tompkins, a labor and delivery nurse, last January, and reprinted several weeks ago by the blog Progressive Alaska.

I have received some criticism for doing this, including a comment from someone I respect, accusing me of doing nothing but "addressing nonsense arguments from a moron first posted months ago." But I disagree. These "nonsense arguments" form the basis of why some very reasonable people, who I do not think ARE morons, and who do not support Gov. Palin in general are still not on board with the idea that she faked a pregnancy, duping both Alaskans and the American people. And the topic of today's post - the Down Syndrome "proof" that Trig must be Sarah's - is one of the cornerstones of this.

__________________

Here's the link to Part 1 in case I have new readers who have not seen it.

This is the second part of my very long post, addressing the points raised in Lee Tompkins' article. In this installment, I intend to (try to) debunk one of the most persistent (and incorrect) assumptions in this whole issue: that Trig's Down Syndrome virtually proves that Sarah is his mother. I do apologize for all the math and numbers here, and realize that at times it's difficult to follow. But the problem is that this statistical proof is cited so often without anyone even understanding the numbers, that they only way to reasonably confront it is with the calculators on the desk.

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a Down's pregnancy in a 44-year old woman is 25 times greater than that of a teenager. Of course, overall more Down's babies are born in the younger age groups but that is reflective of the greater numbers of pregnancies occurring in younger women than older women. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

The writer's opinion here is clear. This statistic (i.e, that Sarah had a 25 times greater chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome) alone should virtually prove to us that Trig must be Sarah's.

This "proof" of Trig's parentage has haunted those of us searching for the truth since day one. Often people who appear to know virtually nothing about the "Who's Your Mommy?" controversy (except perhaps that there is one), all can unfailingly summon this one "fact": Trig MUST be Sarah's because older women have babies with Down Syndrome. I've seen it a thousand times in comments on blogs, gotten hundreds of emails that say the same thing. Trig has Down Syndrome; this proves Trig is Sarah's. Case closed.

What is the reality?

It IS more likely, much more likely in fact, that a woman over 40, on a given pregnancy, will conceive a child with Down Syndrome than a woman less than 20. No dispute. But every year in the U.S. about 300 babies with Down Syndrome are born to women under 20. Not a huge number, but not insignificant either. This is about the same number as babies born deaf to women under 20 (who have no family history of deafness.) Would we disbelieve the story if we are told that a teen mother would have a deaf child?

Furthermore, those who repeat this statistical argument ignore another, equally powerful one in the opposite direction, one that I have never heard confronted head-on, with real numbers, regarding this situation, and that is that Sarah Palin, at 43, had a far FAR lower chance of ever having a baby at all.

Natural fertility drops sharply after age 40, a fact that is now nearly lost in the perception of the general public. Every week, it seems, yet another celebrity well into her forties has a baby. Several in the last few years (Geena Davis and Nancy Grace to name two) have been quite near, even at, fifty. But many - probably the majority - of these women have had these babies with fertility assistance: injections to stimulate ovulation, hormonal support after conception to compensate for a body that is really too old to be having children, and in many (perhaps most) cases where the mother is over 42 or 43, the use of donor eggs. However, these private details are typically not made public, so the public knows only that a baby has been born. They have no realistic clue just how difficult and expensive it was to achieve that.

In addition, women are routinely counseled to stay on contraceptives into their late forties, yet are only rarely advised by their physicians as to how low their actual chances of becoming pregnant are. Because of this, the erroneous perceptions that older mothers conceive often and easily and that pregnancy after forty is likely are firmly ensconced into our national consciousness. (This is much to the dismay and sad disappointment of many women in their late thirties and early forties, who have delayed childbearing and are now discovering that the effects that aging has on fertility often cannot be overcome even with help.)

In reality, what are the chances that a 43 year old woman, who is presumably practicing some sort of contraception and who is not "trying" to get pregnant, in fact will get pregnant at all and then carry that child to near term? The odds are actually extremely poor.

Women who are over 40 face a double whammy: fertility drops every year, and simultaneously rates of miscarriage rise.

Consider the following:
1. At age 40, a woman who is demonstrably fertile still only has a 1 in 20 chance (5%) of getting pregnant in any given cycle. A teen has a 20-30% chance of getting pregnant in a given cycle. And that's age 40. Sarah Palin was 3 1/2 years older than this.
2. At age 40, even using in vitro fertilization, (involving medical assistance with precise timing and hormonal support) the pregnancy rate per cycle is only 10%.
3. The chances of a woman over 40 who is trying to get pregnant via in vitro using her own "old" eggs is one/sixth of that of getting pregnant with younger "donor" eggs. In fact, most clinics will not even use the eggs of women over 40 because the failure rate is so unacceptably high.
4. 50% of pregnancies in women 42-43 years of age end in miscarriage, compared with only 10% for women less than 30.
5. By age 40, 33% of previously fertile couples are infertile, and this rises to 90% by age 45. At age 43 1/2 (the age at which Sarah Palin is alleged to have become pregnant) the chances of her even still being fertile at all were only about 1 in 3. Read that again. Statistics tell us that Sarah Palin had a 66% chance of not being able to get pregnant at all.

Plus - the Palins have been clear that the pregnancy was unexpected, that their baby-having days were over, and that they were not trying to have a child. This can only mean one thing: some sort of family planning method was being used. This would have cut Sarah Palin's already-low chances of becoming pregnant much farther. Oral contraceptives are 95% plus successful in preventing pregnancy. Even condoms are supposedly 85-90% effective in preventing pregnancy if used correctly.

So let's whip out the calculators here. For this little calculation, I am going to ignore the issue of contraception. We can't know what sort of birth control anyone in this equation was using or how consistently and rigorously it was used. So, to simplify things, I am going to, using statistics, attempt to answer the following question. If you have a 43 year old woman and a 17 year old woman who are both "letting nature take its course" (i.e., both sexually active and neither using contraceptives) , what are the relative chances that, in a given single month, each will get pregnant and carry the baby to term?

In a given monthly cycle, at age 40, a fertile woman has a 5% (1 in 20) chance of conceiving. I could not find a comparable statistic for a 43 year old, so we'll use 5% while stipulating that the actual number is certainly lower for a 43 year old. However, don't forget that this is a fertile woman. By age 43, 2/3rds of previously fertile woman are infertile. This reduces that ACTUAL monthly chances of conceiving for a 43 year old to 5% x .33 or 1.66%. A random sexually active 43 year old woman not practicing contraception has only a 1 in 60 chance of getting pregnant each month.

A 17 year old has a 20-30% chance of conceiving per month. For simplicity, let's split that down the middle and say 25%. A random sexually active 17 year old woman not practicing contraception has a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant per month.

In other words - the seventeen year old's chances of getting pregnant in a given month are 15 times higher.

But that's not the end of the story because now, the much higher rates of miscarriage come into play.

The 43 year old has at least a 50% of chance of miscarrying the baby. This cuts the success rate in half, to .8%. The chance that a 43 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is less than 1 in 100.

The 17 year old, meanwhile, has a 7% chance of miscarriage. (Sources cite numbers any where from 5% to 10% - I am splitting the difference.) This gives us a successful pregnancy rate per month for the 17 year old of 23%. The chance that a 17 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is 23 in 100.

.8% for the 43 year old versus 23% for the 17 year old. 29 times more likely. Ironically, quite close to the often quoted statistic that Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in the older mother. So read that again. Understand what it really says. Yes, Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in an older mother, but SUCCESSFUL PREGNANCY is 29 times more likely in the younger mother.

And don't forget, this result is for women NOT using contraceptives (Palin almost certainly was) plus this result was obtained using fertility rates for 40 year olds ( Palin was 43.) Both of these factors would reduce this already - low number even farther in this specific case.

Younger women can have babies with Down Syndrome, though it's rare. Older women can have babies with no medical assistance or support, though it's rare. But what the statistics do show is that those who USE Down Syndrome rates to argue that Trig must be Sarah's are totally missing the other bus: We could just as easily use overall fertility rates to argue that Trig must be Bristol's.

So return to the paragraph I quoted from Lee Tompkins article to start this post, now rewritten:

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a pregnancy carried to term in a 17-year old woman is 29 times greater than that of a 43 year old. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

Feels funny when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Now, to be explicitly clear: statistics are merely a guideline. Statistics do not prove anything either way. Trig has Down Syndrome. This in no way proves he is Sarah's. Trig exists. This in no way proves he is Bristol's (or any other younger mother's.)

And that's what needs to be taken away from this post.

PART 3 COMING SOON

Going Out on a Limb Here

Like most of us who have followed Sarah Palin's rise (and now fall) over the last ten months (joining our colleagues in Alaska who have been watching more or less in horror for two additional years) the events of the last seventy two hours have taken our breath away. My good friend at Mudflats tried to post a summary of all that has happened, and ended up concluding:

Between the news of Palin’s resignation, the reaction of the mainstream media, the blogosphere, the Tweets, the Facebook updates, the threats of legal action against bloggers and the press, the statements from attorneys, and all the rest, I don’t think a single person on the face of the Earth could do a real wrap-up.

She's right of course.

But I am going out on a limb here. Something doesn't add up for me. I know that yesterday I was in there with the rest of them talking about Housegate and IRS and FBI and, to make it clear, I think there is some sort of investigation on-going. Rumors are rarely complete fabrications (where there's smoke, there's either fire or smoke, so it's usually something) and the rumors of a financial investigation into Palin have been so loud and so persistent coming from Wasilla that it's hard for me to believe personally that there is not something there.

But that having been said, again, somethin' just ain't right. Palin assured us that she had been planning this for weeks, but if that was the case, why did Todd leave town for the fishing season and then have to fly home to be there on Friday? (Sarah says this in her speech, though that line is not in the official transcript.) Why did Sarah "Tweet" as recently as 3:53 PM on June 29:

I dont support Waxman-Markey bill; I'll work w/AK Senators & others to address concerns, lacks flexibility needed to protect enviro & develp

and at 10:59 AM on Jul 1:

Congratulations to Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan as he is sworn in today! I look forward to working with him.

Does this sound to you like someone who is on the verge of resgining? It doesn't really to me.

Consider the following:

1. Todd himself was not back in Wasilla until Thursday night. Here it is in Palin's own words: "And I'm thankful that Todd flew in last night from commercial fishing grounds in Bristol Bay to stand by my side, as always."
2. Meghan Stapleton, Palin's poodle, who has been at her side almost continually for months was not even in Alaska on Friday. She was in New York.
3. Sarah had just hired a new press secretary in the past month, long time friend (and author of great reads "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and "How Women Help Men Find God") David Murrow. Snark aside, reading Murrow's info, he seems like a pretty straight-forward up-front nice guy. How bizarre, even cruel, that she'd bring someone new on if she were seriously contemplating leaving within weeks. Murrow posted to his own social networking site on Wednesday that he was "contemplating life's ironies."
4. Family members got no notice until the night before. According to People magazine, Todd called his father on Thursday night, and asked him if he could be at the Palin's home for a press conference on Friday, but even he was not told - the night before - that Sarah was resigning. Jim Palin declined, stating he had another commitment (which appears to be "fishing" from the People article, but hey, this is Alaska).
5. Senator Mark Begich who met with her on Wednesday for 45 minutes has stated she gave no indication whatsoever.
6. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor who will be taking over for her on July 26th, was not informed until Wednesday evening. Again, if this was in the works for weeks, how bizarre it would be for him not to be in the inner circle.

All of these things tell me one consistent story. The decision was abrupt, very abrupt. I am speculating that there was a "trigger" of some sort, and that trigger was sudden and very recent. Her closest inner circle, even her family members, were in the dark until the final hour. And I - and many others - have observed that at the news conference, she appeared ragged, disjointed, almost frantic. She gasped. Her speech delivery, which is never the best, was positively scary.

And at least once, she reminded us that she was being truthful. What? Who had suggested that she wasn't being truthful?

So why? What is it?

There are rumors of a fight between Bristol and Sarah in the previous week over Bristol's unwillingness to continue to do publicity "tours." Is this code for unwillingness to continue the charade about Babygate?

Fellow blogger Celtic Diva had finally raised the $5000.00 plus dollars required by the state for "photocopying costs" associated with receiving Palin's emails and has turned in the official request. A lot of people (myself included) have wondered if there is something in those emails that will be the nail in the coffin, even though, interestingly, Ms. Diva herself doubts that that is the case.

And last - but I don't think least - Levi Johnston is in New York, in the final stages of negotiating a book deal. I have been assured privately that once the deal is inked new information will be made available. I do not know what that information is, but I can make some real good guesses - and so can all of you.

I think this might be a very big week.

**UPDATE** 

Tweet, tweet! I've succumbed to calls to join Twitter and have now linked it in my sidebar on the right hand of the page.

The username is palinsdeception

Thanks for those who've urged me to do this and to readers like Mel, who pointed to the NYT op-ed I just referenced in my second official "tweet."

Some Musings for a Sunday Morning

It just gets more and more interesting. Yesterday, Gov. Palin's legal counsel released a sharply worded statement denying that the Palins were under federal investigation for criminal wrongdoing. I am sure of few of this blog's readers are wondering if I know anything about this.

Here's my answer:

I have over the months developed numerous contacts in Alaska. Over the past 6-8 weeks, I have heard a very consistent story. Palin was under investigation, and it had nothing to do with "babygate." It was big, it was federal, and it was financial. Is this true, or is it a rumor, spread from one source, designed to harm the Palins? I don't know. I will, however, add the following comments.

1. I have received many tips during the time I have been running the blog and website. Some have been worth following up, most have been nonsense. But three separate contacts stand out, and that is why, IF this turns out to be something to do with the building of the house, I will not be at all surprised. These three were all surprisingly similar. They were all Wasilla/Palmer/"Valley" residents. I know they are not the same person three times, since in all cases, the people were not only willing but EAGER to provide me with all personal information, name, address, phone number, where they worked. Hell, they would have given me shoe size if I asked, I suspect. All three checked out. And all three told me basically the same thing. They could not help me with the baby story, but what I needed to look at were the issues surrounding the building of the house. At least one of these tips came in before the election in November.

Here's a quote from an email in February. "Forget Trig. The house will put her in jail."

In each case, I thanked the person for the information, but told them that the baby story was my focus, and that I felt I did not have the time, financial resources, or geographic ability to look into this. I referred them, in each case, to someone in Alaska that I felt could help them. If anything came of any of these people, I do not know.

But I can say, with absolute certainly, that long before June 2009, Wasilla residents were willing to go on record - with their real names and phone numbers and personal info - that there were irregularities, and serious ones, about the building of the Palins' house in 2002. Whether they were lying, I do not know. Whether they were wrong, I do not know. But this issue is not some fantasy, created by pajama clad bloggers, after Palin's resignation two days ago.

And this, going on record with a real name, is something I have never been able to get anyone in Wasilla who knows anything about the baby to do.

2. However, the rumors that I have heard have all consistently said that the investigation is federal. Irregularities with building materials and permits in Wasilla would not be federal, it would be state, as far as I can see, though I am not a lawyer or an accountant and perhaps there is something I do not understand. The F.B.I. has released a statement saying that they are not investigating Palin. This, theoretically, would leave the I.R.S. True? Not true? I don't know, and I want to make it clear that I do not, but that's the bottom line. If it IS federal, and the FBI is not involved, then the only plausible alternative is I.R.S.

Here's a second musing for Sunday morning:

I find it beyond curious that after nearly ten months of myself and others stating, with various degrees of certainty, that Palin's birth story was bogus, not one person has ever even been threatened with any sort of legal action. (There were rumors that Palin threatened the Anchorage Daily News with a lawsuit in January, but as far as I know that was never confirmed, and she certainly never had her legal counsel release any sort of public statement on the matter.) Numerous people have gone so far as to call Sarah Palin a liar openly.

And for those who say that it's because the birth story is below Palin's radar, I say, that's a load of horse hooey. Palin has referred to it in interviews numerous times. It is very clear that these stories have bothered her a great deal.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel. You can't just "sue for libel," and state that the other party is lying. You have to prove it. The Palins would be forced to produce a birth certificate, medical records, and probably a DNA test. The defense would be able to subpoena Cathy Baldwin Johnson (YAY!), the flight attendants on the airplane, possibly school records for both Bristol and Willow, any and all previously unreleased photos and video from the conference in Texas... lots and lots and lots of wonderful things.

Perhaps all of the rumors about criminal investigation and Housegate are false. Maybe Sarah Palin did resign as governor simply because, as she said, the negative media scrutiny had pushed her family over the edge and she believes that because of it she can no longer be effective for Alaska.

But sue anyone over "Babygate?" I'm waiting.

Palin quits. We won't.

Sarah Palin's unexpected and bizarre announcement that she is resigning her office as Governor of Alaska has raised many questions. Is she quitting because she can make more money in the private sector? Is she quitting because - unable to take the heat from pajama clad bloggers - she is fleeing the kitchen? Could it be Levi's book deal? Or - as some have indicated - is she is quitting ahead of a looming legal scandal. 

Our loyal readers have been abuzz pondering these questions. And they've had one for us, too: Does Sarah's resignation mean the search for the truth behind Trig Palin's birth is over?

The answer to that question is a resounding "No!"

Here's why: Covering criminal scandals is squarely in the media's comfort zone. After all, shady accounting and redirected funds - should that be the case - are far easier to question and report on than gestational and birth issues. They involve adults doing bad things, not children manipulated and victimized by power-hungry parents.

I and many others are convinced that elements of the mainstream media either have known or strongly suspected the truth about Trig's birth all along and have become strange bedfellows with conservative elements of the GOP who also know the truth. 

The media and even some Republicans will likely both breathe a sigh of relief if the current rumor turns out to be true. Criminal activity will be the death knell of their rising-star-turned-party-embarrassment.  She will be done, without their having to wade into that other scandal - the one I'm convinced they know about but are too squeamish to reveal.

But as Sarah weakens, I'm convinced that those who feared her will become more bold, more willing to tell what they know about her claims of birthing Trig. If they do, at some point the media will no longer be able to ignore it. And I think it will prove to be a far bigger scandal that even the one we're hearing rumors about now.

Criminal activity is one thing; passing off someone else's baby as yours for political gain is something else. If it can be proven that Sarah did not give birth to Trig, then the question will then be "What did the GOP know and when did they know it?" 

That's a whopper of a question, and the answer might not only irreparably tarnish Sarah Palin, but also destroy the careers of those who selected her and glibly reassured the nation that she had the experience, character and temperament to lead.

If that's the case, the rumored criminal charges may be the tip of the iceberg; the really damaging part may be what's beneath the surface, that thing they're still refusing to see: Babygate.

That's why we won't quit, even if Sarah has.

Palin Resigns

It is surreal. She's resigning.

I am watching Palin's speech. She is hanging on by the ragged edge. She's babbling, gasping, rambling, making no sense whatsoever. I've been watching Palin for ten months. She has never sounded more unhinged to me.

"The world apparently needs more Trigs." is among some of the more bizarre things she said.

Now we've switched from the basketball analogy to the football field. No hockey analogy yet.

Updates will follow.

I think the iceberg is about to hit.

**UPDATE**

Here's Sarah Palin's  official announcement from the governor's Web site, from which she also gleaned much of her speech. 

Here is the press release.

**UPDATE II**

Meg Stapleton weighs in and all I can say is, with friends like these does Sarah really needs enemies? This makes two rambling, bizarre explanations of Sarah's decision.

**UPDATE III**
The videos are now uploaded to YouTube