Palin: Alaska Independece Party, Checking FactCheck.org

I appreciate the concept and challenge of FactCheck's work; however, it seems in their effort to be "objective" they narrow their summaries into sound-bites made easy to abuse.

Example:

FactCheck Says: "She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982."

Issue dismissed.

But Wait. Palin demonstrates a pattern of involvement with AIP, which isn't captured in the summary.

Deeper reading of FactCheck reveals, "her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held." In addition, "As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning."

In her brief video to the 2008 AIP convention, Palin says, "we have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state...." Is this code for saying the State should strive to secede from the union?

It's starting to look like Palin might share the views of AIP, like someone who shares the views of the Green Party but registers Democrat.

A little more balanced shading of the FactCheck summaries might help place the "facts" into a more "factual context." And what about that title, "Sliming Palin: False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate."

Contact FactCheck and let them know what you think.

Sources:

FactCheck, Sliming Palin: False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate

Sarah Palin: Attempted Library Censorship

According to a female resident of Wasilla, Alaska who wishes to remain anonymous writes:

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

The New York Times corroborated the attempted firing, as does Shannyn Moore, an Anchorage-based radio talk show host, as revealed in an interview of Ms. Moore by DemocracyNow'a Amy Goodman:

AMY GOODMAN: I was just looking at a New York Times piece, “Palin’s Start in Alaska: Not Politics as Usual.” Wasilla, about, what, 7,000, 8,000 people. And it says, “Shortly after becoming mayor [1996], former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.”

“The librarian... pledged to ‘resist all efforts at censorship.’” Palin then fired Ms. [Mary Ellen] Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course when residents made a strong show of support.

SHANNYN MOORE: Yeah, that was—that wasn’t a statewide issue but certainly came up during the campaign with—when she was running for governor, and this whole censorship and this fundamentalism. I mean, when you’re running for mayor in a town in Alaska and one of your platform issues as a nonpartisan mayor is your pro-life stance, that tells you a lot about the town you’re in. And it is a pretty fundamentalist type of town, and—you know, and that plays very well in those towns. You know, this sort of censorship, this sort of “vote for me is a vote for Jesus,” it’s very George Bushian, and it’s very Sarah Palin.

This revelation will hit people in different ways. Some will react negatively to the fundamentalist Christian implications. Others will react mostly to Palin's willingness to censor information that doesn't fit her views. But, those who know of Palin's track record of firing people might be most disturbed by her penchant to abuse power and surround herself with loyalists.

More:

Boston Herald, Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books, September 4, 2008.

Sources:

Personal e-mail correspondence with resident of Wasilla.

DemocracyNow, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin Accepts GOP Nomination, September 4, 2008.

Who is Sarah Palin and Does McCain have Good Judgement?

For a change I'm in total agreement with No. 3 Democrat Rahm Emanuel when he said, in reaction to McCain's choice for running mate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:

On his 72nd birthday, is this really the one-heartbeat-away he wants to put in the White House? ... What does this say about his judgment?

And you could almost visualize the jaw drop on analyst Ron Fournier, of the the Associated Press, which led him to write:

A governor for just 20 months, she was two-term mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 6,500 where the biggest issue is controlling growth and the biggest civic worry is whether there will be enough snow for the Iditarod dog-mushing race.

Every politician has some skeleton's in their closet. Palin's is fresh, according to Fournier:

She has an ethical issue as well. Alaska lawmakers are investigating whether Palin abused her power in firing a public safety commissioner. Lawmakers say they want to know whether Palin was mad at the commissioner for not firing an Alaska state trooper who went through a messy divorce and ongoing child custody battles with Palin's sister.

This Just In:

The pick earned McCain praise Friday from evangelicals and other social conservatives who have been skeptical of him. "Conservatives will be thrilled with this pick," said Greg Mueller, a conservative GOP strategist.... Maybe.

Palin, the darling of the social conservatives, has another fresh skeleton in her closet, from the perspective of the social conservatives, Palin's seventeen year old, unwed daughter is five-months pregnant. Of course, this doesn't bother me, but I'm not a social conservative.

Nice headline with which to start off the GOP convention: "Palin says daughter, 17, is pregnant"

Ya gotta wonder if McCain knew this was coming (apparently he knew)? If not, there could be some future trust issues between McCain and Palin. If he did know, then he better start playing up the, "Hey. Palin's just like a lot of other families out there where this sorta thing happens..." Except she has health insurance.

Maybe they're going after the sympathy-vote. And you thought the Democrat convention was a soap opera.

More: Fact-Check Article. Some examples:

+ McCain: "She's been governor of our largest state."

FACTS: Big? Yes, but mostly wilderness. Alaska is ranked 47th by population.

+ McCain: "She's been in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply."

FACTS: She's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state.

Sources:

Associated Press, Analysis: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's, Ron Fournier, August 29, 2008.

Associated Press,
Palin says daughter, 17, is pregnant, September 1, 2008.

"Set Back" Takes on Meaning in High Court's Exxon Decision

Mother Jones Magazine's blog sums up the US Supreme Court's recent decision on cutting the Exxon Valdez oil spill damage penalty to nearly nothing:

After spending hundreds of millions of dollars fighting the $5 billion punitive damage award handed down by an Alaska jury in 1994 for its role in the massive oil spill in Prince William Sound, Exxon today landed a major victory at the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 ruling, with Alito sitting out, the court overturned a lower court decision that had reduced the verdict to $2.5 billion, and sent the case back saying that the punitive damage award was excessive and should not exceed about $500 million, the same as the compensatory damages.

$500 million sounds like a lot, rather than "nearly nothing," until the amount is put into perspective by DemocracyNow:

Last year Exxon Mobil made just over $40 billion in profits. This means the oil company will be able to pay the punitive damages in about four days.

Exxon caused the catastrophic damage over 6,500 days ago (March 1989), and will now pay a scant four days of profits as a damage penalty. The principle of punitive damages is that the penaly is supposed to be large enough to deter similar behavior in the future (the spill wasn't an accident, it was gross negligence). Exxon can easily budget 4-days of profits into its business plan to allow for future a Valdez-like crime and feel no pain. We can see that the US Supreme Court has dashed the principle of punitive damages against Bligh Reef of Prince William Sound.

Regarding the why this is a "set back" a little background on the long-term fate of corporations is in order. The corporate business form is a doomed concept, just like "slavery" was known to be doomed for a long time before slavery finally collapsed. Similarly with corporations, which have become profit-seeking monsters that do more harm to society than good (keep in mind that businesses can exist without having the special protections of being a corporation). If you accept this, we can say that some year, off in the future, corporations will be pronounced as dead as slavery is today. Perhaps this will be in 2108, or sooner, or later.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Exxon Valdez case is a precedent that applies to all corporations. Their decision has likely set back the date when corporations will be eradicated. Corporations will continue interfering with our freedom and self-governance for more decades than would have been the case without this Court decision. As a result, many more people will suffer, and even die, because of the harsh edges of greed that are inseparable from the corporate business form.

Sources:

DemocracyNow, Supreme Court Slashes Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Fine to One-Tenth of Original $5 Billion Ruling, June 26, 2008.

Mother Jones Blog, Supreme Court Overturns Exxon Valdez Verdict, June 25, 2008.