Babygate in the Blogs

With a H/T to Palingates' commenter AKSandhills for bringing it to my attention, please make sure to look at both of these posts in turn:

• A little holiday skepticism by progressive blogger Amanda at Pandagon, and
• Again with a post about Sarah Palin: Responding to the Department of Disingenuously Selective Editing and Smug Name-calling by Deborah at litbrit.

Normally, a skeptic seeks the truth that hides beneath a popularly accepted, "official" story. Not so in Amanda's case, unless she views the Babygate "conspiracy" as the new and now official truth.  But she doesn't.  Instead, she is skeptical about reasons people give for doubting Saint Sarah's holy birth story.  You know, those real good solid reasons like Bristol's cuddling Trig a lot.  If her blog post wasn't so rife with ridiculous statements like

... if you believe the theory, you have to accept Bristol conceived a second time while still pregnant

and warnings like

The Palin conspiracy theory seems tailor-made to rob liberals of our moral authority...

and supporting evidence from an article in the UK Sunday Times about women who don't realize they're pregnant, I could let it pass.

Thankfully, Deborah didn't let it pass -- no doubt because Amanda directly discounts Deborah's statement on the topic: "Litbrit claims it would be impossible to fly during labor, because it’s so painful."  That Sarah was in labor comes from Sarah's own words in both newspaper stories and her book.  (That Sarah slightly changes the story with every telling should be telling, but I doubt Amanda has kept up with the evolution!)  That Amanda disputes the assertion of how difficult it would be to fly for 10 hours while in labor should be enough to totally discredit the rest of her "holiday skepticism" post. Fortunately, Deborah does an outstanding job at rebutting the rebuttal.