So, ever since seeing Mr. Sullivan on "Real Time" the other day I've been trying to check into his blog from time to time. He's even more link-happy than I am though. So I never get far into his recent posts before I'm off on a tangent of some kind.
Tonight was no exception.
Sullivan's Sunday entry included a link to a post about a FoxNoise story about Conservatives questioning Palin's abilities/credentials that was pulled from their website. This piece alone is worth a lengthy post, but I have to choose my battles.
On the linked post from bradblog.com I found a mention of a National Review article by Kathleen Parker which said she thought Palin should drop out of the campaign.
A Conservative Journalist writing for a Conservative publication being allowed to publish what is virtual blasphemy to the GOP? I had to see it for myself.
And sure enough... Ms. Parker told it like it is. Here are a few quotes from her article in case you were too lazy to read it yourself. FYI: The highlighted text in the previous paragraph is a direct link to the article.
"As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."
"Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."
"My cringe reflex is exhausted."
"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there."
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."
So here is a Journalist, who is also a Conservative, writing these words in a Conservative publication. Said Journalist is also a woman. A woman who openly admits to being wowed by Palin's announcement and that she supported her at first.
And here also is a Conservative Female Journalist who has the BALLS to speak the truth that no one else apparently can: Palin is simply not qualified for the task at hand and should step aside for the good of the country.
As a tree-hugging Leftie male I've been saying the exact same thing ever since my first inquiry into the "pit bull with lipstick". So WTF will the Palinites say to Kathleen Parker?
If you want my opinion, they'll say she's jealous. Or catty. Or some equally repugnant (and decidedly FEMALE) adjective. Mark my words.
So anyway... there was a link on the article that said "email the author" or some such thing. I sent an email. Thought it was pretty good, too. Even copied it to include here. And then, like an asshole I lost it by copying the links and quotes above. And since I didn't write the email here on my PC, it's gone.
Suffice it to say I basically thanked her for telling it like it is, briefly explained our political differences and closed by telling her that I hope her party loses the election. Which I had hoped would be a pithy attachment to this post.
And it would have been. But whether my email is included here or not, it's important to recognize that a respected female conservative journalist is calling for Palin to step aside. Not for the sake of her Party, but for the sake of her Country.
If we had more Conservatives with that kind of big-picture thinking, America might not be in the mess we are.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before -- the powers that be would rather vilify Ms. Parker and slam her message than recognize the truth.
I will not be even mildly surprised to learn of a backlash upon her. Whether it be career-oriented, personal attacks or even claims against her integrity.
The GOP does NOT approve of it's members speaking out of school.
Damn... I really wanted to post a copy of that email.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain & Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere... in '07
November 20, 2007
Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.
In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”
“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”
“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”
But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.
You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.
As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.
Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?
Not to me.
To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.
As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.
Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.
Spin THAT.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.
Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.
So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.
The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:
“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”
"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”
"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.
More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.
Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.
Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.
Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.
If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?
I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:
“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”
Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.
In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”
“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”
“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”
But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.
You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.
As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.
Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?
Not to me.
To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.
As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.
Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.
Spin THAT.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.
Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.
So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.
The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:
“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”
"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”
"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.
More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.
Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.
Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.
Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.
If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?
I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:
“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Audacity of Hope 2004
During the 2004 DNC, a virtually unknown Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama gave the keynote address for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
At the time, we were on vacation in Santa Cruz. And as much as I wanted to see the acceptance speeches - I wasn't too concerned with the pomp and circumstance leading up to them.
So when that young Senator took the stage I was outside, washing my mom's car. And when my decidedly non-political wife came outside to tell me I should really see the speech I was missing, I brushed her off.
Later that evening I heard several people assert that Obama would one day be candidate for President. I was convinced that they were caught up in the emotion of the moment, nothing more.
And quite honestly, this is the first time I've seen his '04 speech in it's entirety.
For those who, like me missed the first go-round... or to those who claim he's changed his message over the past four years; I submit for your examination Obama's keynote address from the 2004 DNC (in 2 parts):
Once again... 'nuff said for now.
At the time, we were on vacation in Santa Cruz. And as much as I wanted to see the acceptance speeches - I wasn't too concerned with the pomp and circumstance leading up to them.
So when that young Senator took the stage I was outside, washing my mom's car. And when my decidedly non-political wife came outside to tell me I should really see the speech I was missing, I brushed her off.
Later that evening I heard several people assert that Obama would one day be candidate for President. I was convinced that they were caught up in the emotion of the moment, nothing more.
And quite honestly, this is the first time I've seen his '04 speech in it's entirety.
For those who, like me missed the first go-round... or to those who claim he's changed his message over the past four years; I submit for your examination Obama's keynote address from the 2004 DNC (in 2 parts):
Once again... 'nuff said for now.
McCain's True Bio
Thanks again to "The Daily Show" we now have an accurate (and hilarious) version of John McCain's road to the GOP nomination for President.
As I've personally told many people; I strongly considered McCain as worthy of my vote in 2000.
Sadly, the man who ran the "straight talk" campaign 8 years ago is gone. Replaced by an automoton who will do and say anything to become President.
The folks at the Daily Show have nailed it succinctly with this clip:
As I've personally told many people; I strongly considered McCain as worthy of my vote in 2000.
Sadly, the man who ran the "straight talk" campaign 8 years ago is gone. Replaced by an automoton who will do and say anything to become President.
The folks at the Daily Show have nailed it succinctly with this clip:
The Daily Show clips I couldn't post before
I've decided to see if I can get the other Daily Show clips to embed this time. They're just too priceless to ignore.
First, I'll try the one they called "Sarah Palin - 'Vet This'.."
Okay, that seemed to work. Let's see if I can get the one of Samantha Bee trying to get Republicans to say the C-word on television:
First, I'll try the one they called "Sarah Palin - 'Vet This'.."
Okay, that seemed to work. Let's see if I can get the one of Samantha Bee trying to get Republicans to say the C-word on television:
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Olberman, the RNC and 9/11 TM
My man, Keith Olberman has once again hit the nail on the head. The so-called 9/11 tribute video shown at the RNC was clearly just more GOP fearmongering, and more of their BS claim that "only we can keep America safe".
I find it especially interesting that in that video, they end it with the tag line:
"... and we will never let it happen again."
Really? After 7 years of saying "It's not a matter of if Terrorists will strike again, but when." They are now confidently saying that if kept in power they will NEVER allow it to happen again?
I'll give them one thing... they've got balls. Unfortunately they're made of paper-thin glass and will shatter into a million pieces the moment another terror strike happens.
They've concentrated almost totally on Iraq - a country that hated Al Quaeda before we invaded - and virtually ignored Afghanistan, the country long-believed to be the safe-haven of BinLaden.
Yet they expect us to believe them when they say they are our Protectors. And only they can be trusted with the safety of our nation.
Have you heard about how porous our ports are? I've personally gotten on 2 airplanes with a lighter in my pocket without being questioned. It very easily could have been a glass knife or other non-metalic object. However, they made damn sure my shampoo bottle was the right size.
Anyway... here's a clip of the assinine "tribute" video from the RNC, along with Keith's live reaction:
While I've been working on this post, midnight has come and gone. So it is officially the 7th anniversary of that tragic day.
I remember a certain level of incredulity when I was a kid and heard adults talking about how they all remembered exactly where they were and what they were doing when JFK was assasinated. Ever since 9/11 I've understood what they meant. I still remember the moment I was told that something was going on, and even more vividly remember the first televised images I saw.
I also remember being inundated with those images to the point of saturation. I avoided the television altogether for days. I remember quite well the way I felt that day, and for weeks afterward. The images will never fade from my memory. And I didn't know a single person lost.
A true tribute to 9/11 would have focused on the heros of that day, and the families directly effected, and the healing that has occured over the years - as well as the scars that remain.
Instead, the RNC and McCain/Palin chose to once again smack us across the face with the brutality, violence and terror that we all remember quite well, thank you very much.
All in the interest of furthering their bid for the White House, with their preposterous claim that they are the more qualified or caring party when it comes to protecting America from terrorists.
Oh... and the best part is this - McCain has been claiming since January that he knows how to stop BinLaden. Yet apparently will only share this revelation with the rest of us if we elect him POTUS. Nice.
Olberman puts it much more succinctly than I ever could in his "Special Comment" - so here it is:
'Nuff said for now.
I find it especially interesting that in that video, they end it with the tag line:
"... and we will never let it happen again."
Really? After 7 years of saying "It's not a matter of if Terrorists will strike again, but when." They are now confidently saying that if kept in power they will NEVER allow it to happen again?
I'll give them one thing... they've got balls. Unfortunately they're made of paper-thin glass and will shatter into a million pieces the moment another terror strike happens.
They've concentrated almost totally on Iraq - a country that hated Al Quaeda before we invaded - and virtually ignored Afghanistan, the country long-believed to be the safe-haven of BinLaden.
Yet they expect us to believe them when they say they are our Protectors. And only they can be trusted with the safety of our nation.
Have you heard about how porous our ports are? I've personally gotten on 2 airplanes with a lighter in my pocket without being questioned. It very easily could have been a glass knife or other non-metalic object. However, they made damn sure my shampoo bottle was the right size.
Anyway... here's a clip of the assinine "tribute" video from the RNC, along with Keith's live reaction:
While I've been working on this post, midnight has come and gone. So it is officially the 7th anniversary of that tragic day.
I remember a certain level of incredulity when I was a kid and heard adults talking about how they all remembered exactly where they were and what they were doing when JFK was assasinated. Ever since 9/11 I've understood what they meant. I still remember the moment I was told that something was going on, and even more vividly remember the first televised images I saw.
I also remember being inundated with those images to the point of saturation. I avoided the television altogether for days. I remember quite well the way I felt that day, and for weeks afterward. The images will never fade from my memory. And I didn't know a single person lost.
A true tribute to 9/11 would have focused on the heros of that day, and the families directly effected, and the healing that has occured over the years - as well as the scars that remain.
Instead, the RNC and McCain/Palin chose to once again smack us across the face with the brutality, violence and terror that we all remember quite well, thank you very much.
All in the interest of furthering their bid for the White House, with their preposterous claim that they are the more qualified or caring party when it comes to protecting America from terrorists.
Oh... and the best part is this - McCain has been claiming since January that he knows how to stop BinLaden. Yet apparently will only share this revelation with the rest of us if we elect him POTUS. Nice.
Olberman puts it much more succinctly than I ever could in his "Special Comment" - so here it is:
'Nuff said for now.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Dateline Wasilla, 2000
Today I came across a story I hadn’t heard about since McCain’s announcement of Palin as his running mate. Many others have spoken about it online, but once I found the original article from the local newspaper from Wasilla, Alaska from 2000 - I felt an overwhelming desire to have my say as well.
Unlike many of the other stories about Gov. Palin, this one includes hard numbers claimed by her administration when she was Mayor of Wasilla. This one is straight out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak. So please check out the actual article (linked below) before continuing.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
I’ll address Palin’s culpability later. First, let’s do a little math.
The article states that the tests cost between $300 and $1200 apiece. The mean (average) of these numbers is 750, so let’s use that as our estimated cost.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon claims in the article that the (then) new law would cost Wasilla between $5,000 and $14,000 per year. The mean (average) of these numbers is 9.5, so let’s say the average yearly cost to Wasilla would be about $9,500.
By dividing 9,500 by 750 we arrive at 12.66666... So let’s call it 12.7. This is the average number of investigated rapes in Wasilla per year, according to the Chief of Police.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Statistics), the per-capita incidence of rape is around 0.4 per 1000 people over the age of 12.
I’ve heard the population of Wasilla variously reported as being anywhere from 3,000 to 9,000. Apparently, some of this discrepancy is due mostly to rapid growth during the ’90s. Let’s continue to use the mean (average) number for our calculations: in this case, we’ll call the population of Wasilla 6,000.
Using wikipedia’s numbers, the average annual number of rapes in a city the size of Wasilla should come in somewhere around 2.4. And that’s assuming that every person living in Wasilla in 2000 was over the age of 12!!
According to it’s Chief of Police, in 2000 the small town of Wasilla, Alaska was experiencing incidents of rape almost 5.3 times higher than the national average. Even higher if you factor out children under the age of 12.
Now add to that the fact that “only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police” and it would appear that Wasilla had a very serious problem with rape and sexual assault 8 years ago, during Palin’s 1st term as Mayor.
Whoa!
So what to make of all this? Seems pretty clear to me that one way or another, Sarah Palin was demonstrably ineffective on at least this one issue during her tenure as Mayor.
Why do I say that, you might ask. After all, it wasn’t Palin who made the claims quoted in the article - it was the Police Chief.
Who do you suppose the Chief of Police is subordinate to? Who does he report to? Who is his boss?
The Mayor, that’s who.
So either Palin was behind the policy of charging rape victims for their examinations to save the paltry amount of money claimed by Fannon for such a service - which strengthens the claims that she is a ruthless, money-hungry , cold-hearted bitch . Or she wasn’t even aware of it., which confirms other contentions that she was an ineffective (if not damaging) presence in local politics during her 2 terms as Mayor.
To those Palin supporters who want to write this issue off as “aww… you can’t blame her, she must not have known.” I say: You are the people directly responsible for the state of government in this country. Stop buying the rhetoric on face-value. Do some research.
So either she was the force behind the policy, or she simply knew about it and did nothing to change it, or even worse - she was totally clueless.
None of these scenarios supports the claim that she was an effective Executive at even the level of small-town Mayor. Let alone Governor. And surely not as 2nd in command of the United States of America.
All it points to if McCain/Palin wins this election is more obfuscation, deception and cronyism.
In other words - more of the same from the GOP in DC.
If that’s what you’re looking for, we have nothing to talk about. However, if you are one of the millions buying into McCain’s new-found claim to be an advocate for real change in Washington because it’s what you truly want - I implore you to keep reading. Keep googling. Seek out people who are able to speak about the candidates honestly - warts and all.
If you come across someone who claims that their candidate is perfect… walk, no RUN away.
Do the same if you find someone who is placing a vote AGAINST a candidate.
If you truly want to learn which candidate is right for you, YOU must do the leg-work. Don’t let the media or the pundits do it for you.
Visit websites like www.snopes.com, and www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com to find truly non-partisan parsing of the facts. Be aware that in doing so you will learn things about your candidate that you might not like, but with enough searching and stumbling, you’ll eventually begin to form your own true opinion.
Further searching will land you on blogs like mine. Some you will agree with wholeheartedly.
Others you will wish could be wiped off the face of the earth (the GOP might actually help you with that… just remember that if they can ban the ones you disagree with, they can do the same to the ones you like).
Regardless of where you go or what you find - if you keep yourself open to hearing differing perspectives - you WILL learn something.
About yourself, about our government, and about how you really feel about the future of this great nation.
I encourage everyone to do this, knowing that by doing so I am risking the possibility that some “fence-riders” might be influenced by a position I disagree with and turn to the Dark Side. If you do so of your own accord, with actual facts and personal opinion to back you up - I’m okay with that.
Just don’t walk into the voting booth with the voices of politicians or pundits echoing in your head. Do it truly of your own free will.
And if I meet you in a bar - be prepared to explain your decision without using party-line rhetoric. Use your own words and give me real-world examples of how your candidate is going to benefit you during his time in the White House.
That way, when 2012 rolls around… one of us will be able to say “I told you so.”
And actually mean it.
Unlike many of the other stories about Gov. Palin, this one includes hard numbers claimed by her administration when she was Mayor of Wasilla. This one is straight out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak. So please check out the actual article (linked below) before continuing.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
I’ll address Palin’s culpability later. First, let’s do a little math.
The article states that the tests cost between $300 and $1200 apiece. The mean (average) of these numbers is 750, so let’s use that as our estimated cost.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon claims in the article that the (then) new law would cost Wasilla between $5,000 and $14,000 per year. The mean (average) of these numbers is 9.5, so let’s say the average yearly cost to Wasilla would be about $9,500.
By dividing 9,500 by 750 we arrive at 12.66666... So let’s call it 12.7. This is the average number of investigated rapes in Wasilla per year, according to the Chief of Police.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Statistics), the per-capita incidence of rape is around 0.4 per 1000 people over the age of 12.
I’ve heard the population of Wasilla variously reported as being anywhere from 3,000 to 9,000. Apparently, some of this discrepancy is due mostly to rapid growth during the ’90s. Let’s continue to use the mean (average) number for our calculations: in this case, we’ll call the population of Wasilla 6,000.
Using wikipedia’s numbers, the average annual number of rapes in a city the size of Wasilla should come in somewhere around 2.4. And that’s assuming that every person living in Wasilla in 2000 was over the age of 12!!
According to it’s Chief of Police, in 2000 the small town of Wasilla, Alaska was experiencing incidents of rape almost 5.3 times higher than the national average. Even higher if you factor out children under the age of 12.
Now add to that the fact that “only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police” and it would appear that Wasilla had a very serious problem with rape and sexual assault 8 years ago, during Palin’s 1st term as Mayor.
Whoa!
So what to make of all this? Seems pretty clear to me that one way or another, Sarah Palin was demonstrably ineffective on at least this one issue during her tenure as Mayor.
Why do I say that, you might ask. After all, it wasn’t Palin who made the claims quoted in the article - it was the Police Chief.
Who do you suppose the Chief of Police is subordinate to? Who does he report to? Who is his boss?
The Mayor, that’s who.
So either Palin was behind the policy of charging rape victims for their examinations to save the paltry amount of money claimed by Fannon for such a service - which strengthens the claims that she is a ruthless, money-hungry , cold-hearted bitch . Or she wasn’t even aware of it., which confirms other contentions that she was an ineffective (if not damaging) presence in local politics during her 2 terms as Mayor.
To those Palin supporters who want to write this issue off as “aww… you can’t blame her, she must not have known.” I say: You are the people directly responsible for the state of government in this country. Stop buying the rhetoric on face-value. Do some research.
So either she was the force behind the policy, or she simply knew about it and did nothing to change it, or even worse - she was totally clueless.
None of these scenarios supports the claim that she was an effective Executive at even the level of small-town Mayor. Let alone Governor. And surely not as 2nd in command of the United States of America.
All it points to if McCain/Palin wins this election is more obfuscation, deception and cronyism.
In other words - more of the same from the GOP in DC.
If that’s what you’re looking for, we have nothing to talk about. However, if you are one of the millions buying into McCain’s new-found claim to be an advocate for real change in Washington because it’s what you truly want - I implore you to keep reading. Keep googling. Seek out people who are able to speak about the candidates honestly - warts and all.
If you come across someone who claims that their candidate is perfect… walk, no RUN away.
Do the same if you find someone who is placing a vote AGAINST a candidate.
If you truly want to learn which candidate is right for you, YOU must do the leg-work. Don’t let the media or the pundits do it for you.
Visit websites like www.snopes.com, and www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com to find truly non-partisan parsing of the facts. Be aware that in doing so you will learn things about your candidate that you might not like, but with enough searching and stumbling, you’ll eventually begin to form your own true opinion.
Further searching will land you on blogs like mine. Some you will agree with wholeheartedly.
Others you will wish could be wiped off the face of the earth (the GOP might actually help you with that… just remember that if they can ban the ones you disagree with, they can do the same to the ones you like).
Regardless of where you go or what you find - if you keep yourself open to hearing differing perspectives - you WILL learn something.
About yourself, about our government, and about how you really feel about the future of this great nation.
I encourage everyone to do this, knowing that by doing so I am risking the possibility that some “fence-riders” might be influenced by a position I disagree with and turn to the Dark Side. If you do so of your own accord, with actual facts and personal opinion to back you up - I’m okay with that.
Just don’t walk into the voting booth with the voices of politicians or pundits echoing in your head. Do it truly of your own free will.
And if I meet you in a bar - be prepared to explain your decision without using party-line rhetoric. Use your own words and give me real-world examples of how your candidate is going to benefit you during his time in the White House.
That way, when 2012 rolls around… one of us will be able to say “I told you so.”
And actually mean it.
Monday, September 8, 2008
YAY!! It's time for more clips!!!
First; special thanks to Jon Stewart and the folks at "The Daily Show" for putting together the following piece. IMHO it's a pretty good benchmark for the duplicity of the GOP and is a clear indication that FoxNews is anything but fair or balanced.
Here's another one from "The Daily Show". I know, I know... they're fake News. However, they're never too far away from the video archives - and it seems people there have really good memories. This bit is from the night after McCain's acceptance speech, and it's freakin' hilarious. And what's the old line about good comedy? "It's funny because it's true."
That's it for the fun and games for now. For some reason the other 2 clips that I wanted to use won't embed for me. Hope you enjoyed these ones, and perhaps some of you gained a little perspective.
Here's another one from "The Daily Show". I know, I know... they're fake News. However, they're never too far away from the video archives - and it seems people there have really good memories. This bit is from the night after McCain's acceptance speech, and it's freakin' hilarious. And what's the old line about good comedy? "It's funny because it's true."
That's it for the fun and games for now. For some reason the other 2 clips that I wanted to use won't embed for me. Hope you enjoyed these ones, and perhaps some of you gained a little perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)