Thanksgiving flashback... Palin's Turkey pardoning gone wrong...

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 23:19:12 PM AKST

Now, the train wreck:

Remember when I innocently attended this event at the Turkey Farm in order to buy a bird for Thanksgiving?

Talk about the gift that kept on giving!

(Click on the turkey to see the less-appropriate pictures and the post.)

HERE is the follow-up story when the whole thing went viral.

So believe it or not, I actually just roasted chestnuts to use in the dressing I'm bringing tomorrow.  I feel so Currier and Ives! (I'm also bringing Dutch apple pie, cranberry sauce and pumpkin bread if I have time.) We're driving out to Palmer for early dinner tomorrow...and it's snowed like crazy so I should get gorgeous pictures.

We'll see the in-laws on Friday morning and, sadly, attend a funeral in the afternoon.  Posting may be a bit sporadic over the next couple of days.

A wish for all of you: When thinking today about the things I'm most thankful for, you guys came to mind immediately.  You have helped me many times with stories, ideas, research, etc...all of which were wonderful.  Of course, your willingness to pitch-in and help when it was most needed still leaves me in awe. However, the thing I'm most grateful for is the emotional support so many of you have shared through comments, Facebook messages, emails, etc...I'm not always the best about responding due to sheer volume but realize I appreciate each and every message.  

I hope all of you have a beautiful, loving holiday surrounded by people who love you.  And thank you for everything.

One Million For What: No Tribute Will I Pay To Palin This Day

by: Jeanette

Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 18:50:52 PM AKDT

My grandmother woke up before dawn every morning for the first forty years or more of her life, trudged out of doors, loaded coal into a bucket, walked back to her home, and stoked up the pot bellied stove so that her family would be warm when they came to the table for breakfast.  

The single mother who lives beside me gets up every morning, feeds her cubs, and drives them to school every morning, so that they can have a better future.    

The Philippine woman who lives on the other side of me works in a hotel everyday while her husband manicures yards, and plows snow at all hours to save money for their son's college education.  She frets over the fate of her relatives back in the Philippines.

Our own beloved Diva I surmise, tends her flock, her garden, her home, and her daughter so that they will all prosper and thrive, and still she finds the time to question authority out of control.  

Ann Strongheart fought for the well being of her community, cares for her daughter, tends to the everyday chores, and buried her husband...

A gay woman grabs a cup of Java, kisses her partner of ten years good morning, heads to work, skirts unwelcome intrusions into her private life so that she can keep her job.  

A young woman begins a career in an industry dominated by men.  She has to work harder than most men to prove herself.  She finds ways to cope, to get 'er done in the face of impossible odds.

All over Alaska, ordinary woman do extraordinary tasks for their families, for themselves, for their careers.  Many, if not most, do not question their lot in life.  They do.  They must.  They have no choice.

Sarah Palin was blessed with good looks, the opportunity to attend college, colleges, and the extraordinary good fortune of being in the right place (post Murkowski Alaska) at the right time.  She had all the advantages, and what did she do?  She quit.  She walked away from her career, her goal, her dream.

Picture me in a cafeteria on my lunch break.  I am surrounded by men whom I respect, and who I believe respect me.  We are watching the TV overhead.  The teleprompter running under the face of the pretty newswoman announces that former Governor Palin's book sells one million copies during its first day of release.  I sit quietly.  The man on my left comments that Sarah didn't have a chance against the legislators.  The man on my right chimes in and remarks that she did the right thing by resigning.  She couldn't get anything done with all the opposition against her.  The man opposite me agrees with the second man's assessment.  I take a deep breath, and make the following comment.  I will paraphrase.

"Everyone of you sitting next to me is a supervisor in this company, and I bet not one of you got where you where by giving in to the 'opposition.'  Not one of you would respect a man for making the kind of decision that Sarah Palin made, and this conversation would be very different if it had been a man.  Well, I am not cutting her any slack.  She signed on to be a governor, and she quit.  As a woman, as a citizen, I am disappointed.  I worked my ass off as a maintainer in the Air National Guard, and I didn't quit.  I know a lot of women who face much greater adversity, and they didn't quit, and I am saddened that a woman who obviously quit in the face of hardship will make unfathomable amounts of money by hiring someone to write her story, and sell it to the public."

I stood up, put my tray in the little tray thingie by the galley, smiled at the airman first class manning her station, and walked back to my cubicle.  

Women live in my state who can write words that bring tears to my eyes.  Women live in this state (CC, this one is for you, thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your support), who despite anguish and hardship, fulfill their obligations no matter the pain.  Women live in this state who carry burdens on their shoulders no woman should be asked to carry, and never flinch, never question.  I love these women.  I cherish these women.  I want to tell them all that they matter.  I don't understand why the world twist and turns as it does.  I don't know why some women die in the span of the few seconds it takes for a bomb to explode over a city in Bosnia, while others reap rewards undeserved.  

Why, why and why?  There but for the grace of our maker go I.

So Close, Yet Stimulus Funds So Far

by: Jeanette

Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 14:23:09 PM AKDT

Yeah, sort of...  Why am I not performing a series of backstrokes along the length of my keyboard?  Probably because I already spent the money on the much needed upgrades, and the energy rebate is not retroactive.  I do have some work still to be done, but the bulk of the money has already been spent.  I couldn't put off replacing my windows any longer.  When the installers were able to work me into their schedule, I had to jump on the opportunity.  Had I not, my windows might well have fallen out of their casements before winter's end (no exaggeration intended for dramatic effect).

I, like many others in the state, signed up in the spring for an energy audit by a state approved inspector.  The inspections are required before a person can apply for an energy rebate.  Realizing that I had several thousand dollars worth of work to be completed, I signed up for the inspection as soon as I could.  Unfortunately, a backlog of applicants and lack of funding for the audit reimbursements all but assured that I would not receive my inspection until the end of summer.

So, when the hope of stimulus money loomed on the horizon, I grew enthusiastic.  Then, when our oh, so clever Governor vetoed the energy stimulus money, my hoped dimmed, but did not perish altogether as I waited for the possibility of a veto override.  When that happened, my spirits rallied once more.  Then my windows arrived, and the contractor told me that if I didn't get them installed now, I wouldn't see them installed in time for winter.  Sigh.

Had Sarah Palin just signed the stimulus package, the energy audit company would have had the funding to schedule my audit sooner.  Here is how the audit and energy rebate works:  I pay the inspector $450 up front.  They do the inspection telling me what improvements need to be made, and I make them.  The state reimburses me $325, and I apply the cost of the work that was done towards a tax credit.  The only thing holding up the auditors was the funding for the reimbursements.  

The good news is that if you are waiting for your audit and were say, 1000 or so on the list, you may receive a phone call soon from an energy auditor.  The bad news for me is that I cannot claim tax credit for any of the work that was done before my inspection.  I will most likely fore go the audit and free up my portion of the rebate for someone else.  It won't do me much good, and someone else might still be able to benefit from the rebate.

So here I sit, unemployed since June, my hopes dashed for some sort of reimbursement for upgrading the energy efficiency of my home.  I am thankful that I was able to take measures to decrease the cost of heating bills.  I am luckier than many here in Anchorage and out in the bush communities.  

To Mrs. Palin:  whether through inexcusable ignorance or simply a callous disregard for the struggles of the citizens in your state, you have done us all a great disservice by vetoing the stimulus money for the energy package.  I am tired of you and those like you, who profess to understand the free market, who espouse its glory and constantly berate us for not bowing down to worship at its patent pended alter.  

I will not extol its virtues, or lift on high its gladiators, mediators, grifters and shapeshifters, but will continue to see it for what it is:  a medium for making money, neither inherently good or evil, but capable of both qualities.  I will chose to do business with governments and financial entities worthy of my money and time, and do my utmost to shun those that seek to bilk me of my hard earned paycheck.

I am expected to pay all my bills on the net amount I take home, whilst I watch corporations extend their profits through rebates, refunds, tax shelters and stimulus packages.  

I refuse to elevate CEOs, CFOs, COOs and all other blank, blank, Os to the stature of the new Feudal Lords of state excepting their policies and procedures as word of law.  I will not extend to them the divine right of rulers.  A founding father once warned me of doing so, and will heed that warning.  

So Mrs. Palin, and those who seek to curry the favor of these would be feudal Lords of the modern age, I hurl this shot across your bow.  Be wary the masters you choose.  I will seek the company of my neighbors, and strive to be worthy of their trust long before I rest my carcass on some plot of land paid for by the likes of the beltway marauders who seek to pillage and destroy the government I gave up eleven years of my life to protect and defend.

In the words of the talented members of Monty Python,

"Just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you from some lake, doesn't make you the Lord and ruler of ALL England."

Fade out to the sound of coconuts, er, hoofbeats pounding in the distance...

Huckabee's Comments on Death Care

by: Jeanette

Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 19:26:31 PM AKDT

So far I have chosen not to directly address the repeated accusations of right wing, conservatives that President Obama and Progressive Democrats support death care, death panels, euthanasia or any number of other words and phrases meant to arouse fear in citizens.  

What comment by whom has finally drawn me out? Mr. Huckabee has chosen to join Sarah Palin and others in attacking "End of Life Counseling" and twisted it into some sick form of "death panels."  These accusations, ridiculous and without merit, threaten to place an undeserved black mark on a program that has provided comfort to and assuaged the fears of thousands of Americans who have had the misfortune of losing a loved one to a terminal illness.

The infamous page 425.  What does it mean?  What does it propose to do?  

First here is the link to H.R. 3200.  

http://energycommerce.house.go...

This is the house version of what has now been titled the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009."    A similar version of this bill has been introduced in the Senate.

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A8...  

The section of H.R. 3200, much maligned by some right wingers, SEC. 1233., is Titled "ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION."  So much has been said by those who claim to understand what "end of life care" means, and all of it has little if any root in truth.  

I will give you my personal experience with "end of life counseling."  I hope it helps to clarify the importance of such counseling, and dispels the myths and fears surrounding this section of the bill.

My father was diagnosed with Esophageal cancer on October 14th.  For many months, my brothers and I hoped with all our might that my father would have the edge on this disease.  As many of you know, my partner and I joined my father in Lynchburg,and even as we celebrated the inauguration of our 44th President, we clung to the belief that my father would beat the cancer.  He was so strong, so viking, so seemingly indestructable.  

Cancer does not respect genealogy.  It cares not for the form and function of DNA and RNA as it was intended to exist at conception.  It invades the cell, manipulates the RNA, reorganizes the organic factory, and reforms it to serve its own needs.  Organs that were intended to live for decades, succumb to a lesser life span.  The affected cells grow and multiply destroying the delicate homeostatic balance of life.  

Chemotherapy, radiation, proper diet and other treatments are all attempts to counteract the growth of cancer, but sometimes, no matter how hard science tries to intervene, cancer wins, vital organs are crowded out.  The body tries to protect itself by accumulating fluid putting further pressure on the organs.  Eventually the body cannot maintain the balance of life.  The heart, the lungs, kidneys all begin to wear themselves out in an attempt to adjust.  

My father called me on a frosty day in early February.  I sat in my office as he told me that his doctor had informed him his cancer had gone terminal.  His body could not cope.  The chemo could no longer stop the cancer.  He was dying.
I collapsed in a heap, and I wept.  I allowed myself to grieve.  Then, as my father lived, so went I and every moment thereafter was dedicated to his wishes.

My father drew up a living will.  My step brother served as his executor.  All of his children were given copies of his will.   In this will he stated that he did not wish to be revived should his heart fail him.  He inserted in his will a DNR (do not resuscitate) clause. He did not want to be kept alive through artificial means after his brain had ceased to function.   Nor did he wish to have his body sustained artificially after it had lost its capacity for self sustenance:  no feeding tubes, no I.V. drips.  

Cancer is a nasty condition.  As it progresses, its growth begins to redirect precious resources away from normal body functions to feed the growth of the tumor(s).  As the cancer grew in my father's body, he grew thin.  What nutrients he was able to take in were immediately absorbed my the cancer. Because the tumor pressed against the other organs of the body, fluids began to collect around his vital organs in an effort to protect them from the pressure much as a blister forms on a foot to protect it from damage. I watched my father deteriorate.  For those who have witnessed this, I apologize with all my soul if I revive painful memories.  I do so only because I do not wish to see future generations deprived of end of life counseling.

End of life counseling for our family consisted of several key parts.

1st - My father paid a lawyer to draw up a will laying out specific instructions to his executor and designated "caregivers" as to his final wishes.  Having determined that his cancer was terminal, he did not wish to be resuscitated should his heart fail.  A copy of this directive was kept on his person at all times.   A copy was also registered at his hospital.  End of life counseling would give people access to such wills.  

2nd - My father elected to enroll in local Hospice care.  His wish was to die at home under the care of a hospice nurse.  Hospice provided him access to twenty four hour own call care, support for his caregivers, and would act as an intermediary with the funeral home at his death.  H.R. 3200 would afford people the option of participating his hospice care.  

3rd - My father arranged for his designated caregivers to participate in end of life counseling with hospice.  The counselling was intended to prepare his family for his death.    

End of life counseling.  This phrases can raise fear in the hearts of those who have no experience with it, and comfort in the hearts of those who have benefited from its care.  My father chose the care of hospice.  He wanted to die in his own home on his own terms.  It was his wish, and he had discussed his intentions with his family.  He was lucky enough to have the financial resources to draw up a living will, and a family willing and able to be with him as he prepared to die.  

It is one thing to say you are prepared to face the death of a loved one and quite another to face it.  End of life counselling helped to prepare me for what I was about to face.

During the first day of counseling, my brothers and I met our hospice counselor.  She explained to us the function of hospice, which was to provide the in home medical support my father would need to cope with the many symptoms and complications of end stage cancer.  She explained in detail the various stages that might be expected at the end of my father's battle with cancer.  We were given my father's emergency medications to be used only when his pain became unbearable.  We were instructed in pain management.  We were given a 24 hour number with which to reach on call nurses who would answer our questions.  We were given literature to read to help us transition as our father transitioned from life to death.  

Imagine if you will, a man capable of running 5 to 8 miles day, reduced to struggling for breath as he made his way to the bathroom.  Imagine your brother, all five foot ten of his massive frame, trying to help his father off the toilet without breaking ribs.  The literature we were given helped us overcome those obstacles.  Everyday presented a new set of obstacles.  Our counselor and nurses from hospice helped us through every step.  This is end of life counseling.  This is reality.  

No one told us to cut cords, disconnect respirators, refuse my father food.  When my father's body could no longer take food, the counseling helped us understand the biological mechanisms involved as his digestive system shut down.  When my father could no longer take fluids, they showed us how to prepare little sponges dipped in ice water to wet his lips.  The nurses  helped ease the awful fear in my chest that I was not trying hard enough to ease his pain.  When his pain became unbearable, they reassured us as we administered the painkillers, because there is no more nerve wracking worry than that you might give someone too much painkiller.  And, during those final hours, the counseling helped me recognize the signs that my father was letting go.  I understood the breathing patterns, the way my father appeared to speak with loved ones no longer with us, that he could hear us even if he could no longer respond outwardly to our words.  We read from the Bible, played Frank Sinatra, talked to our father, and told him he could let go.  Hospice volunteers called us frequently to ask if we needed help washing dishes, preparing a meal, all the little things you take for granted when all your time and attention is centered on your loved one.  

Please forgive any pain I may inadvertantly caused to those who have suffered the death of someone close from a terminal illness, but I feel compelled to talk about my experiences because the comments of Mr. Huckabee, Mrs. Palin and others who threaten the future of what I consider to be a very important program.  I cannot imagine facing my father's death without the help offered by hospice, and the end of life counseling it provided.  Because my father planned for his death, because he had the finances to do so, my brothers and I were able to be with my father in his final hours.  He enjoyed a peaceful passage from life to death on his terms, but I know that many in this country do not receive this gift.  I had the unbelievable privilege of holding my father's hand as he drew his final breath.  He was able to die in the house that he loved surrounded by the memories of his departed wife and the family he loved.  

I want people to have access to this program who do not have the financial resources my father enjoyed.  He would have wanted that for them.   That H.R. 3200 provides others access to end of life counseling is amazing.  That the political posturing surrounding this bill threatens to sour people's view of this program is appalling.

Emotions should compel us to rise above our stations in life to make life better for others.  They should not drive us to deprive others of better care, and access to a better quality of life or even death.  

Aloha Oy!

by: lazarhat

Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:56:54 PM AKDT

I live "facebooked"* it while watching it live on the KTUU feed (a very bad feed btw, so thanks for the CSPAN video) and then dashed off to produce some crazy magic... don't know if I succeeded at the task but I sure enjoyed the Crunch & Munch while doing it!

http://omfgalaska.blogspot.com...

* = "Live facebooking" sometimes involves the act of rolling your face over your keyboard repeatedly while screaming. I think I may have hit the tone just about right but I'm not stupid enough to jump into a flight suit and start hoisting the "Mission Accomplished" banners just yet. Today we entered what I dubbed the "golden dawn of the post-Palin political era" and I have an idea that our work as bloggers is FAR from over.

-Laz

A Considered Response

by: JustMe

Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:02:46 AM AKDT

Here is my rant!!!!

Anchorage Daily News:
EDITORIAL
Our view: Ethics: take it seriously
It's too easy to file frivolous complaints under current law
Published: July 24th, 2009 11:33 PM
Last Modified: July 24th, 2009 11:34 PM

Gov. Palin's critics have finally hit upon an ethics complaint that is getting some traction. Until now, she has repeatedly complained that many complaints filed against her were bogus and clearly politically motivated. Those bogus complaints are a disservice to her and to Alaskans.

I am offended that the editors of the Anchorage Daily News are so willing to buy into and perpetuate the "bogus complaint" argument that Governor Palin has made.  It does a disservice to all who file those complaints, as not one single person filed these complaints did so with the knowledge and intent that they were "bogus" or "frivolous".    The previously dismissed complaints did have merit.

They have been "dismissed" for a variety of reasons, many of which people have disagreed with, yet still they are all worthy of consideration.  To suggest that these complaints are politically motivated is disingenuous at best considering that we know for a fact that not all of those who have filed these complaints are of an opposing political party to the Governor, in fact the person who has filed the most complaints against the Governor, who used to have the complete and total support of the Governor for her "attack dog" status in going after government abuse & waste is of the same political party as the Governor is.

What is a disservice is to have people like you, who are supposed to be fair and impartial, become for lack of a better phrasing, a cheerleader for the Governor.   You bring down your own credibility by maintaining this cry of "bogus" and "frivolous" when it comes to describing the actions of citizens using the tool given them by law to hold their elected official answerable for their actions.  

I would also point out that these complaints must be properly notarized and involve an Alaskan citizen, so this claim that some character from a television show or movie was a filer of a complaint is a lie, and I suspect deliberately done to heighten the idea that this is all done as a political agenda to smear the Governor.    

The state needs a strong ethics law that enjoys public confidence and doesn't needlessly alienate politicians who would gladly move to weaken it.

You are correct that the state needs strong ethics laws, yet that isn't the only factor at play.  The state needs strong laws that are actually enforced, consistently, with fair and impartial accountability for those who don't follow those laws.  

Isn't Governor Palin the one who championed herself the ethics reformer?  Is she not the one who charged headstrong into the arena claiming that she was a champion of these tougher standards?  She claimed the state needed ethics reform and then went on to tour the United States of America during her bid for the Vice Presidency claiming she had reformed the ethics structure within her state.

Is she not the one who is responsible for the laws that are now on the books in the state of which she is Governor of?  Or was?  Did she not quit her job on the Oil & Gas Commission claiming that her inability to bring attention to the public the ethical problems she encountered?  She bellowed the lack of transparency in the ethics statutes, and decried the 'behind closed doors' way of doing things.  She has changed her tune dramatically now that those complaints are directed at her, and apparently now that the shoe is on the other foot, she wants things to go back to the way they were.

So, is she simply a hypocrite, or is like so many who use claims such as "ethics reform" as a talking point in speeches,  simply good at picking up on what people want to hear, with no real thought behind what it actually means to have to  do more than "talk the talk"?

Frivolous complaints against Palin have diverted attention from a case with substance, like the current one involving her legal defense fund. They make it easy for politicians to claim they're victims, being harassed by unfounded complaints, as Gov. Palin has done. They also sometimes require a legal defense, and can cause a public official to rack up debt, as Palin has also done.

Again, calling the complaints "frivolous" makes it seem that as if you have any idea of what you are talking about, and gives rise to the assumptiong that they are indeed just as you and the Governor suggest, when I can think of only 1 that might be considered "frivolous" and really it had to have been dismissed out of hand due to the requirements for filing not being met, nor even close to being met, and I stated previously, I think that this case in particular is being used to make a point without providing the facts of the situation, so that is deliberate and underhanded way to try and gain sympathy.  

One complaint was apparently not notarized correctly and not only not filed due to that but also it had no supporting evidence for the allegation made, so again it was dismissed before it made it past the doorway.   All the other complaints were submitted with clear viewpoints as to why they were thought to have merit, and with corresponding evidence as well as statute information provided to support the complaint.

 How can that be considered frivolous?  Because the Governor and her administration said so?  

Simply because an investigator decided to dismiss the complaint it is now considered frivolous?   Should we then consider every complaint against someone who later has the charges dismissed as frivolous and  deemed as unworthy of being considered?  No that is not the way it works.   While many may disagree with the results of the complaints, and equally many are unhappy that the complaints were even brought to light, this is how our system of holding politicians and elected officials accountable for actions they take, is meant to work.  

A claim is made, an investigation takes place, and then if it has merit it goes forward and if not it is dismissed.  
Governor Palin's debt is her own doing.   Based on the laws and statutes, the Governor has the right to submit her bills, for complaints that are dismissed, to the state for payment, and has not done so for her own reasons, which I believe is based on a fear of those bills becoming part of the public record. There is only one reason for her to acquire debt in the case of a complaint and that is if it has merit enough to be investigated.   If it is merit-less, and without justification, what possible cause is there for her to need extensive legal counsel for the matter?

The debt that the Governor has found herself in is entirely due to the complaints that were found to have enough merit to investigate and need clarification from her legal counsel, and therefore those costs should be born by the Governor herself, and not the state, nor the constituents she is supposed to be representing.

This current case, regarding the Legal Fund that Governor Palin authorized on her behalf, is justified as were other cases, in my opinion, and no other case should detract from this one, just as this case should not detract from any other.   These are individual cases and each should be judged on it's own merits and not whether or not others before it have had merit or not.

Politicians have made a fortune and a lifestyle in portraying themselves as "victims" of one thing or another and Palin is not any different in that respect.   She has just taken the victim status to a new level in my opinion, crying over every comment made that she doesn't like, arguing over every perceived slight and negative comment, even while claiming to have thicker skin, and telling other politicians to suck it up and prove themselves worthy.  She is a walking case of "do as I say, not as I do" if there ever was one.

The Legislature should amend the executive ethics act so as to discourage people from filing frivolous complaints.

Perhaps it would be wise instead of claiming that we need to discourage people from filing frivolous ethics complaints, the editors should classify what they consider to be "frivolous" complaints.   As explained previously, this argument that people are filing complaints that they know to be frivolous doesn't hold water, since the majority of the complaints have had merit, have had supporting arguments and information of the statutes and how they are believed to have been violated attached to these complaints.

The obvious way to do that is to take away people's incentive to publicize the filing of a complaint and to make political hay out of it.

Perhaps it is better to ensure that the people have faith that the system is going to work the way it should, and not worry that the system in place is going to simply overlook or dismiss a valid and reasonable complaint that is made.  When people lose faith that the system in place is going to work , or feel that the system is rigged or designed in an inherently unfair manner, what are they left with?  No one to hear their complaints in a fair and impartial arena.  

If, as in the case in Alaska, the citizen feels that the system is not working the way it is supposed to, and that there is no "next level" to take their concerns that is fair and unbiased, what are they supposed to do?  Ignore what they consider to be illegal or unethical behavior until such time as they can get the laws and or statutes changed?  

Right now, it's easy to blab about an accusation and make it seem like a public official is guilty of something, whether that's true or not.

Would this be the same as saying a complaint had no merit and was dismissed such as the case with the Governor working out a deal to repay  the money she charged to the state for her children's travel, and then later claiming it was without merit and was dismissed?
And does this type of thing happen every day, citizens make complaints about their elected officials, and if worthy of investigation ,it is, and if not, it is dismissed, or no investigation need take place.  

If you are someone who cannot seem to get your concerns taken seriously what recourse is there?   Don't we have the whistleblowers act for this reason?  To protect those who bring misconduct to light and to prevent them from being punished for it?  

I would also point out that having a Governor & his/her administration  address his/her constituents as serial complainers, or claiming harassment, or calling these complaints, "malicious attacks" demanding a "backlash" among other things, while gleefully offering such comments as "we won"  or "How much will this bloggers asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?" all on the states website, makes him/her look childish and immature at best, and vindictive and retaliatory at worst, considering these ethics laws are those championed by the current Governor as her own brand of "reform" over previous ethics laws which she felt needed to be improved.

When a complaint is filed, the filing should be kept confidential until an investigator determines whether it has substance.

In a perfect world, yes, but this is not a perfect world, nor a perfect system. The system is broken, and until it is fixed people are going to continue to ensure that abuses they feel worthy of notice are going to be made public, if not to get action taken in or by the system, then to attempt to hold the person filed against, accountable in a public manner, in the hopes that once made public the abuse or unethical behavior might be curtailed.

And once again when people have lost confidence in the system, it's just not surprising that they would ensure that people know what they believe to be an abuse.   Governor Palin did not like the fact that ethics complaints were confidential previously but has now changed her mind since they have been aimed at her rather than someone else.

At that point, whether the ethics law was violated or not, the complaint should be public, along with the investigator's report. To make sure people don't publicize a complaint prematurely, their complaints should be dismissed if they talk about them before they have been investigated.

These points have already been covered previously, so see above!

Also, each person should be limited to one complaint per year. And if we really want to weed out silly complaints, those complaining could be required to file a bond of, say, $100, refundable if the complaint has merit.

I cannot for one second believe that anyone would suggest that we charge people to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions or limit the number of times a person can speak out on abuse by an elected official!  This is simply outrageous, and not worthy of consideration let alone a rebuttal.

The complaint over the legal fund for the governor brings to light another problem: The veil of secrecy surrounding a complaint stays in place too long. The public learns what's going on only if the investigation finds probable cause and the matter is sent to hearing.
A probable violation can be settled in secret, short of a hearing, with corrective action.

I believe it is stated that only the Governor (or whomever the case is brought against) can authorize the release of  the results  in any case being brought against her.  We will only hear about these matters if she waives confidentiality on these matters and from what we have seen she will only do so if the results are in her favor.

That is another inherent abuse of the system as if there are findings of guilt then it can be kept secret, and away from the public viewpoint and goes against everything we as a country should stand for.  Allowing corruption, abuse of trust, illegal and unethical behavior to be maintained in secrecy is abhorrent to any decent  and honest person.

At least for politically appointed officials, lieutenant governor and governor, the case should be opened to the public once it has been vetted by an independent investigation.

This then brings rise again to the perception that the public has over whether or not these cases are truly being handled by an "independent" investigation or not, and as the cases with Palin have proven, many do not feel that the handling of these cases has been fair and impartial or done by an "independent" investigator.

Whether the case is dismissed or moves forward, the public has a right to know at this point. For high-ranking political officials, here is little harm in saying a charge was filed but found to be unfounded.

I agree that regardless of the outcome the public has a right to know.  Dismissed or not, the public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing, and why people believe that they are violating the trusts put in place by our laws and statutes.

With civil service employees, keeping confidentiality for unfounded claims might be justified.

I am curious as to the wording of this and it's inclusion in this rant against all those who have made the choice to stand up for what is right against the Governor who claimed ethical superiority over past behaviors and demanded better guidelines with which to follow,  since there is no explanation given

If we can get rid of frivolous complaints, and save the publicity until there's been an investigation, the ethics law will be stronger.

Frivolous ethics complaints do not make it before the board.  If they are frivolous they are dismissed out of hand and nothing comes of it.   Using this straw-man argument is just a way to divert attention and side step the real issue at hand.  The system is broken and needs to be fixed, and calling the complaint frivolous or merit-less, all of them that have been dismissed does nothing for your credibility, instead it proves you are no more than championing the idea that citizens who feel they have a valid complaint and want to hold their elected officials accountable are wrong to do so.  

BOTTOM LINE: Some minor changes in ethics laws could discourage frivolous complaints.

BOTTOM LINE: Some major changes are needed but they involve a personnel board who does not answer to the person they are supposed to investigate and rule for or against, perhaps a higher standard for ethics complaints, and a truly open and transparent process that allows the public to have confidence in the system.

Now to offer some of my own suggestions as to what I feel needs to take place, and all due to the Governor and her time in office......

**No governor should be entitled to collect per diem for living in their own home when they are given a place to live in Juneau.  The statutes are clear that the Governor's & Lt. Governor's salary is "in full", and should not include any additional payment.  Making phone calls from your home, or giving interviews should not be cause for charging the state additional monies.  You are on the job 24/7 and part of your job includes those duties, whether from your office or your home.  If you make a long distance call from your home phone pertaining to strictly state business, the cost of the call can be reimbursed, but the call must be recorded as to who and when the call was placed, and should be strictly related to state business.

**If a governor is going to be out of the state for longer than one week then the reins should be handed over to the Lt. Governor until or upon the return of the Governor to the state/job on a full time basis.

**The state should not pay for the first family to travel to any event outside the state. If they are invited somewhere, then those who invite them should cover the cost of the family if they want them to attend an event, if the Governor or Lt. Governor wants their family to go along even if not invited to attend an event, and the event coordinators are unwilling to pay for it then it should be up to the Gov./Lt. Gov. to pay for that themselves.

**Travel by the  family within the state, on the states dime, should be limited to important state functions, where the family is expected to attend and not simply celebratory ones such as the Iron Dog, the Iditarod, Founders day, etc...

**No state employee should be paid to travel with the Governor or Lt. Governor unless the travel is strictly state business, and can be proven to not include any partisan events, or political personal business.  If the employee wishes to accompany the Governor or Lt. Governor, they must use either personalsick or vacation time to do so.

**Spouses are not permitted to attend meetings, or conferences unless the other members in attendance  have their spouses included and it  is not involving state business.

**Spouses' of state employees should not be included in emails that involve state business, nor should they be given state paid for communications (Like Todd Palin's state funded Blackberry)

BREAKING NEWS ALERT

by: lazarhat

Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 00:03:37 AM AKDT

http://omfgalaska.blogspot.com...

-Laz

Palin stepped down: Thank you, Alaskan bloggers!

by: I Love Truth

Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:49:52 AM AKDT

So thank you again and God bless you.  

PALIN Quitting?!

by: LOrion

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 11:35:55 AM AKDT

Report: Palin stepping down as Alaska governor
Former vice presidential hopeful won't finish out first term

BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
updated 5 minutes ago
Sarah Palin plans to step down as governor of Alaska, KTUU-TV reported Friday.
Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, won't finish out her first term as governor, the station said.
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will take over, KTUU reported.

I get mail, part DEUX... mail from trolls!

by: lazarhat

Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 08:03:22 AM AKDT

I'll be out for the rest of the day.  Sadly, with the worsening climate (and I'm not talking about weather) I don't feel comfortable publicly stating where I'm going ahead of time anymore.  I'll be back with a post this evening.   - promoted by Celtic Diva)

Oil Well Willie writes:

"well, you know what they say...   (0.00 / 1)
in politics, if you have to keep explaining your
stupidity you are losing losing.

speaking of losing, you and your tribe are 0-15
on the ethics complaint boondoggle.

tut tut"

Well see Willie it's like this:

    By whose scorecard? Yours and my friend Navylcc19's? Oh that's right -- it's that chatty little blog Sarah runs (or designates someone to run FOR her at her behest):

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/arc...

    The game is fixed and run by employees of the executive branch if you're talking about the personnel board! With lawyers bought and paid for by either Sarah (defending her) or the state -- which, oh wait! -- is ALSO Sarah since the executive branch has hired several local lawyers to act as 'investigators' on behalf of the board... and Sarah IS the 'CEO' of this entire circus. Who is wasting money on lawyers? For most of these cases 'investigators' have been retained by the board. This is open and transparent? A process in a representative democracy where the people have no say, no oversight? These are NOT independent counsels under ANY traditional meaning of the term.

    I am not impugning any of these people or the jobs they have done, I'm asking for a little checks and balances here, is all. The personnel board is absolutely, positively, 100% the WRONG venue for investigations into executive branch ethics complaints. Time to hit the reset button for Alaska and go back to the rational, open, honest and BI-PARTISAN days of the ORIGINAL 'Troopergate' investigation by our state legislature. The one that had started BEFORE the McCain campaign! The one that Sarah, Meg and the rest of the bunch (allegedly paid for by the McCain campaign) would later work so hard to discredit and derail as being "partisan" and "politically motivated".

    Again, the people of Alaska didn't start this fight, Sarah did when she went on television, while on the campaign trail with McCain and 'Troopergate' was just starting to be investigated in Alaska by the legislature's independent counsel as agreed upon by a bi-partisan vote. She uttered the words "hold me accountable". (We're trying dear, but you must stop squirming. Admit your sins, fess up, move along. You did with the travel expense problems, so keep up the good work! Go Sarah! Go you!)

    So we didn't start it but we will damn sure finish it AND in the appropriate LEGAL venue instead the big red "NO" stamp from what appear to be her rubber-stamping cronies on the personnel board. And while we do it, peacefully, with humor and grace, we will NOT make personal threats against the opposition. Nor shall we publish personal information including phone numbers for them on the internet. Nor will we use our radio programs as bully pulpit to suggest that listeners harass the opposition or do crazy stuff like threaten them with violence. Lastly we promise that we will NOT unleash our Chief of Staff to suggest that, and I quote from the ADN article (from a press release put up on the state of Alaska website), "I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion...". What does that mean, Mr. Nizch? Wasilla justice? Should I be worried about getting kneecapped by Tonya Harding's thugs, sir?

So in summation Mr. Oil Well Willie, when Governor Palin is driving this bus of state we Alaskans like to call "Alaska" we just want to make sure she's keeping her eyes on the road, doing her job and NOT issuing chatty TWEETS to the rest of the cheerleader squad.

-Laz

I'll tell you who cares...

by: lazarhat

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 18:58:09 PM AKDT

"Who cares?

Lets raise more money to donate to hungry lawyers, 1 billion people in this world are hungry and you waste your time on a politician, any politician, You propogate the cycle of liberals and conservatives, they all suck. You are 0 for 16 on wasteing money on Palin, Why bother ? Every politician is crooked, life is short, do something honorable with your time. A health bill that wont be used for politicians or federal employees, kinda strange. Instead of us being food in Soylent Green we are just money to the political world. WAKE UP"

To a diary that was posted half in jest... I had already posted the (what I thought to be) scathing "BULLSHIT!" diary and posted the other as a non-related joke. Here is my (as usual) verbose response:

    Palin set up the game with the layers of lawyers, not us, sir. We are asking her to be held accountable for her actions as a paid public servant of the state. There are certain conditions all citizens must meet when serving their constituency as Governor, some even governed by actual laws and statutes, but in my mind the penultimate one is that of being honest.

    "Why bother, they're all corrupt", you say? Exactly. Because apparently people like you feel it's a waste of time (not to mention money) to hold them accountable and to insist that they conduct governmental business in an open and transparent manner. As Governor Palin, who RAN as an ETHICS candidate, has promised her citizens on not one but several occasions publicly in press conferences.

    Speaking ONLY for myself sir -- openness and transparency SHOULD be the standard to which ALL public servants be held, regardless of party affiliation. Besides, in MY opinion, all and I do mean ALL political parties should be abolished as the tools of serfdom they have become... you have money you get access to power, you don't have the money, tough luck. That is the system we have now. Are you satisfied with the way it presently functions? I certainly am NOT.

    It is the system we are saddled with by our recent corporate overlords and war profiteers. But these circumstances are changing through HONORABLE actions like Linda's! It is a hard struggle. One for which I have an idea that all humans are equipped to tackle. It's not only a right, it is an absolute necessity and a responsibility that citizens take an active role in government. After all, it is allegedly "Of, by and FOR the people...", is it not? You don't get to representative democracy by hitting the "feed sim" button on your Nintendo Wii repeatedly. It's hard work. Hard work that we should be embarrassed about if we ARE NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN OUR OWN REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

    Corporations have the money so they get the access. In a sense, perhaps by "bringing some of them low" or reintroducing them (and the politicians those corporations "own" through their multimillion dollar "campaign contributions") to accountability, personal ethics and personal responsibility during this time of economic meltdown perhaps they are all receiving a re-education at the hands of the real masters of the purse strings: the American Taxpayer.

    Both politicians and corporate leaders need a wake up and "come to Jeebus" moment to remind them that ultimately we are ALL humans here and we ALL need to chill the fuck out and stop screwing over each other for political, personal monetary or power gains. Since the taxpayer holds the purse strings, we should have all the power, right? Can corporate America finance it's own $700 BILLION bailout? What do you think? It's time for the taxpayer to grow a pair and remind all these idiots for whom it is that they work.

    Without our cooperation and consensus they might as well be selling BIC lighters in Hell or filibustering their own (mostly) dumbass legislation that does nothing other than to declare the ptarmigan as the state bird or the marmot as the state rodent.

    On a more serious note, pushing ideologies for the sake of merely pushing an agenda and ignoring any consequences to your fellow humans is not only criminal, it's a surefire prescription for the extinction of ALL humans. Seriously. The sooner we all learn to get along and stop arguing over the petty bullshit, the better.

    But I'll remind you sir that we didn't start this "fight" with our governor, she did when she said the words "hold me accountable" and that is a direct quote. We may not have started it but I can damn sure assure you we're going to finish it.

-Laz

Documented Hypocrisy

by: JustMe

Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 01:34:48 AM AKDT

I am curious as to why no one in the media has called Governor Palin out on her hypocrisy with regards to this matter.  

First and foremost, Governor Palin willingly appeared on and participated with Saturday Night Live during the presidential election campaign and she did so just a month after that same show had done a comedy sketch that suggested her husband Todd had an incestuous relationship with their daughters.  
SNL Skit with Todd Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Where was her outrage then?  Why would she agree to appear on a show that had portrayed her husband as one who would rape his own daughters?  Is it because she was willing to ignore this for her own political advantage?   It would seem that Palin has an agenda when it comes to her outrage and it is reserved for occasions as she sees fit. This supposed disgust with David Letterman and the lengths she has taken it, along with her husband and her spokesperson is just outrageous.  The claims of "rape jokes" and the insinuations that Letterman is somehow perverted are tactics designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to portray Governor Palin and her family as victims once again.  No one mentioned the children's names until the Palin's did.  Not only did they publicly name all of their daughters in an attempt to cause more outrage, but they also attempted to incite a stronger reaction to this situation by the usage of the word "rape", when that was not used by Mr. Letterman nor was it implied by anyone other than the Palin family.   Other comedians have made suggestive comments regarding her daughter, and yet we have never seen Governor Palin create this kind of deliberate and nasty campaign against them?  Why not?  
Why is her disdain and disgust reserved for Letterman when his comments were far less egregious than those of SNL?   Or does the Governor find a joke about her daughter getting "knocked up" by someone famous far more outrageous than a joke about her husband having a sexual relationship with their daughters?

My attempt is to point out the continued hypocrisy of Governor Palin.   She claims that  comments made by Mr. Letterman can somehow in her mind be connected with the abuse of young women by older men and contributes toward the low self esteem of the young women in our country, and yet she is has willing appeared on a television show that  had her husband  portrayed as having  sexual relations with her daughters, she has been a guest on a local Alaskan radio show that made fun of a local politician who happened to be the State Senate President and laughed while these two men  (Bob & Mark) made fun of this woman and Governor Palin laughed while they called this woman who had survived cancer  a "cancer & a bitch". Did she attempt to defend this woman? No, Did she voice her own dismay at that kind of talk? No.   What did she do?  Nothing until local papers started complaining about her poor behavior especially in light of the fact that she was the Governor, then and only then did she attempt to excuse her behavior by claiming that she was unprepared for what they were going to say.  Now, how do you claim that with a straight face, when you have stayed on air with these two while they have continued to malign and degrade this woman throughout the show?  

http://loc.rousefamily.com/lef...

She is also a guest on occasion of Eddie Burke who verbally abuses women on his radio show, who was suspended from his show for calling a group of  women with whom he disagreed..." socialist baby-killing maggots" and giving out their personal information on air, (and when these women started getting harassing calls, he tried to pay it off as if he had not intended that...like we are supposed to believe that after what he called the women on air)

http://crooksandliars.com/2008...

and who has sexually harassed women,

http://www.courtrecords.alaska...

and she even allows her daughter to be a call in guest on this same show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Is this how she sets an example for the women and young girls she is now claiming to be so concerned about?  

If she can make such a tenuous link to abuse due to the jokes Mr.Letterman told, then can we tie her comments of "palling around with terrorists" during the campaign to the frenzied hate that was shown at her rallies?  Is she somehow responsible for the incitement of the calls of "kill him" and "terrorist" due to her comments made?  One would have to say that based on her own reasoning we could make that connection and claim.

She then tries to make this a political issue by claiming that her family was attacked by media while the same media left the Obama family alone, but she forgets to mention that the Obama family did not have their children with them onstage everywhere, nor did they use them for purposes of pandering to a certain segment of the voting public.   Yes, the Obama family were together on the campaign trail occasionally, but for the majority of that time, those girls were at their own home, in school.  The Obama's tried to shield them as much as possible from the media.  Yes, when you are a politician who is running for office there are going to be times when you are going to have to do interviews that include your family.  Those situations are to be expected and are understood.  If you are honest you can't deny that the difference in the way the two families handled having their children around during the campaign were polar opposites.

The campaign ended over 7 months ago.  Governor Palin has not kept her family out of the spotlight since that time.  Bristol has become a paid spokesperson for Candies preaching abstinence, she has done at least one interview with Fox News/Greta Van Sustern, the Governor has publicly commented on Levi & Bristol more than once.  Piper is on camera whenever possible with the Governor.  Until this trip to NY, Willow was really the only one who had managed to stay out of the spotlight, but unfortunately her parents decided to thrust her into the spotlight by naming her as the person with whom they claimed David Letterman was targeting.  

This appears to me to be nothing more than feigned outrage for sympathy which is something that Governor Palin seems to be quite proficient at, and more than willing to take advantage of when it suits her needs.  

A simple, obvious solution...

by: lazarhat

Fri May 29, 2009 at 08:43:07 AM AKDT

    I have an idea that the bulk of the charges are perhaps from overpriced lawyers acting as 'investigators' in lieu of an actual attorney general or independent counsel -- remember Sarah hired these personnel board investigators so they are NOT independent -- at $400 an hour, defending Sarah from any 'complaints'. Just sayin'. Ahem. Cough cough.

-Laz

Of Sarah and the problems of 21st Century media...

by: lazarhat

Tue May 19, 2009 at 20:40:59 PM AKDT

    There is absolutely NO transparency for investigations of ethics violations by the governor precisely because the APOC AND the Personnel Board are (I believe) staffed by individuals appointed by the person they are supposed to be investigating! They owe their jobs and salaries to her appointment. If your job is on the line with every word you utter, how honest are you going to be -- especially if you absolutely must render a non-biased decision about ethical lapses by your own boss and immediate supervisor? I know very few people altruistic enough who are willing to sacrifice their very livelihood for the sake of truth.

    Frankly, the whole damn shebang needs to be structured differently, with representatives appointed by all three branches of government. Otherwise it's all a waste of time and money, a ruse that only serves to rubber stamp tacit approval of the governor's actions as opposed to actually investigating any alleged ethics violations.

*****

The tragically related second part:

    And here is where the folks at the ADN and all news media outlets in general have failed us as a society -- many of them are culpable for seemingly abandoning their role as the 'Fifth Estate' -- in the absence of any non-partisan investigation by individuals NOT beholden to the subject of any said investigation, journalists are supposed to shine the light of truth and investigate as guardians of the public trust. All news media is supposed to be on that very same page. Don't take my word for it. Thomas Jefferson said it himself.

    In many instances the ADN has acted as governor Palin's head cheerleader, totally abdicating their responsibility as watchdogs against dishonest politicians and defenders of the public trust. The ADN (and they're NOT alone) continues to marginalize itself in the eyes of the news consuming public exactly because they just aren't doing as much investigative journalism as they should. People buy newspapers to read news, not hear about bread and circuses.

    Birthday games? Football picks? Vote on which syndicated comic they will drop or acquire? Celebrity news? I read newspapers for NEWS not entertainment. That's why they're called NEWSPAPERS, not ENTERTAINMENTPAPERS. You want entertainment? There are plenty of alternatives available. Over the past few decades and in the interest of supposedly broadening their subscriber/reader base (and by extension the profits of their corporate masters) newspapers in particular have continued to expand their coverage of things that don't even pass the sniff test for being even remotely related to 'news'.

    Over time, entertainment has continued to nudge real news off the page. There's even a word for it now -- 'infotainment'. Perhaps the most telling thing for me personally is that the dictionary for this blog didn't even highlight that word as misspelled! It treats it as an actual word. Because NOW it is.

    For example, the lines between what constitutes what IS or ISN'T actual news continues to be blurred by outfits such as Fox News who seem to be more news creators and news makers rather than news reporters or journalists. They are more like publicists and paid propagandists for neocons and their talking points and for supposedly grass roots movements like their recent ridiculous episode of promoting and/or sponsoring "Tea Baggers".

    It should be stated that if you know anything about media then you know that Rupert Murdoch already did his best to kill Republicanism (as opposed to the current state of monarchy/parliamentarianism) in Australia and succeeded fabulously. Oz voted to stay with their system rather than move towards becoming an independent Republic as was heavily promoted (with bread and circuses, natch) by Murdoch's media conglomerate 'down-under'.

    Murdoch is on course to do exactly the same here in America, helping to kill off true conservative Republicanism by promoting the substitution of the neoconservative movement in its place (but not before he's added billions of dollars in ad revenue profits from their infotainment lineup, bilked almost willingly from the rubes who swallow Murdoch's bullshit hook, line and sinker). Greed drives the 'infotainment' which in turn pushes real news off the air which then pays for more bread and circuses, etcetera, ad infinitum.

    The only winner in that scenario? The billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The losers? ALL OF US when someone inspired by Glen Beck and his ilk, with their communist/socialist/fascist/militia fantasy scenarios amping up the paranoia which may cause unbalanced individuals to go on killing sprees because they been told repeatedly and incessantly the lie that Barack Obama, dressed in mufti and turban, waits silently, lurking around every dark corner ready to take your guns away from you.

    There are several documented examples of this having happened already and for anyone to deny the linkage is utter foolishness. This is not news. This is the promotion of violence wrapped in the cloak of hate speech. Scenarios my ass. Glen Beck has advocated violence. Rush Limbaugh hopes our president fails. As much as I disliked Bush and especially Cheney I never hoped they failed because if our leaders fail, so does America. Despite all the unlawful and unconstitutional activities Bush and company seemed (in retrospect) to be involved with, you didn't hear 'left-wing extremists' promoting armed insurrection against them. We are a nation of laws. Promoting violence in the face of unsubstantiated lies ("Barack is a Muslim... he's not an American... he's coming to take away your guns...") is unmitigated, absolute TREASON against this country and it's people. ALL OF ITS PEOPLE.

    For some, watching media outlets like Fox News is like watching a rattlesnake trying to crawl up it's own ass in order to bite YOU. It's funny at first but with enough effort the rattler may be strong enough to puncture it's own skin, thus spraying some poison in your eyes. Continuing the analogy further, the best way to kill this particular rattlesnake may be to cut it's head off. Just say NO to huge media infotainment conglomerate monopolies and back it up with real laws that prevent the incestuous relationship between TV moguls ALSO owning a large chunk of radio stations, cable providers and yes, even newspapers within the same market -- something Bush and company DID NOT do during their embarrassing tenure. In fact the record shows that they acted as enablers, promoting these monopolies in the interest of 'free markets' as it pertains to media companies. Sound familiar? It should because they did much the same with the financial markets and look how well that has turned out. "Wall Street got a little drunk..." -- mostly because the Bush administration supplied the hooch and cheered them on when Wall Street wore the lampshade while attempting to dance under the (mortgage backed derivatives and/or war profiteering) limbo stick. Ditto with media conglomerates though it doesn't hit us directly in the pocketbook, it merely robs us collectively as a nation of intellectual capital.

   In the very near future, I have an idea that more locally focused newspapers (and also blogs), while in some cases suffering almost as much as the dailies, will continue to out-perform daily newspapers in the areas of readers, investigative journalism, subscription rates and ad revenue. It's a no-brainer. Overhead for running an online outfit is much lower than having a brick and mortar newsroom and distribution service. Hire competent journalists, pay them a decent wage with decent benefits then allow them to submit their stories from home, their home office or wherever they happen to be at that moment and the whole industry would witness a renaissance. Blogs in particular are leading the wave of new media because they give individuals the ability to take the power of journalism and media back from these monopolistic media weasels.

    Unfortunately for all of us as media consumers, old world industries such as the traditional 'mainstream media' or the music recording industry (whose current distribution model is also broken) have yet to catch on to the successful model of online ad-sponsored content or ad-free content available by subscription only. Perhaps after a few more of these dinosaurs (or rattle snakes) die, they will collectively pull their heads out of their asses, wake up and go -- "Oh yeah..." before it's too late.

    Those that don't change will continue to marginalize themselves as their readers and subscribers dwindle away to a level that isn't large enough to support their endeavor. Which is sad in some cases because of what they had the potential to be if they just hadn't wasted so much time and effort promoting 'infotainment' and instead promoted actual journalism and reporting. They've wandered too far down the bread and circuses path to realize that there is no going back.

-Laz

As the Sarah Turns...

by: lazarhat

Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:21:37 AM AKDT

    The book supposedly isn't going to happen until 2010. Another sign, as Andrew H. said that she IS NOT going to go for Govenor in 2010. She'll bail, two weeks later the book will hit and two month later she'll be involved somehow in national politics.

    Sorry. Just my prediction for better or worse and I'm not saying it will be a good or a bad thing. Sarah's got "first runner-up" ambitions and nobody can stop an ex-beauty queen first runner-up and her ambitions except the monster itself. Trust me. Some of my best friends were beauty queens in high school. Junior Misses and whatnot. The word juggernaut comes to mind.

    But for now the focus should be on any advance she may get for this "book" she "writes" and any monies paid in advance must be properly declared and accounted for... otherwise I don't have a problem with her supposedly "writing" a "book" if she can show she did it in her spare time. You know, the times when she's not greedily collecting her per diem while living, eating and sleeping in her own home.

    Oh wait. The law is written so as you are pretty much owned 24/7 by the state as its executive so anything before 2010 would be... anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Yes. Yet Another Ethics Violation.

    Pardon me for pointing out that when you have a three member board that was appointed and serves at the behest of the executive (the personnel board) supported by outside counsel hired by the same executive and defended against by a lawyer hired by the very same executive, investigations become far too incestuous for my taste. There needs to be a more balanced venue for ethics investigations. Hmmm. Perhaps one of those other branches of government that are supposed to work in concert with the other two to balance out the three-legged stool we call American Democracy? Hmmm? Checks and Balances? Anyone hear of that since middle school civics class? How about a little "What up?" Legislative branch? Judicial branch? Grow a pair and put the hammer down on this "Bush in Training" executive.
Pretty please?

    Same for the appointment of an interim AG. I have an idea that she knew full well that WAR didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to get appointed and she'd be able to control her hand picked flying monkey much easier than some rogue, maverick-y guy like WAR. Thus AG Rubberstamp, who shall keep stamping away until she delays herself through another session of not picking a replacement AG.

    I applaud the article, Linda. I'm just prognosticating aloud.

-Laz

Sarah Palin's "Cult of Personality" part DEUX

by: lazarhat

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:17:33 PM AKDT

    It also serves to demonstrate the absolute shallowness of most if not ALL of their arguments in support of her. "It's the left-wing "gotcha" media's fault!", "It those lying bloggers fault!", etc., ad infinitum. What about having the humility to admit when you're wrong and accept your own faults? I'm not seeing much if any of that coming from our governor. What about being enough of a human being to say "yes, I let the horse out of the barn, my fault, my bad" and accept the consequences? Ditto, dittoheads.

    I admit it. I am NOT perfect. I made a simple error. I profusely and sincerely apologize. This is called "owning up to and accepting your faults". Now if you'll kindly forgive me for this spelling error (and with all apologies to Walt Monegan, a man for whom I have the utmost respect and someone who I believe would forgive me for the error with a characteristic laugh and a smile), please address the substance of the opinion piece. Thank you.

    Pointing fingers at others is called "assessing blame". Children do that when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar or when they spill a glass of milk. They point at others. They point at their siblings hoping to divert attention so as to escape the wrath of any parental punishment for their error. Some at C4P may say that I'm doing exactly that, but my response to them is that I was merely relating my opinion of the news that I've absorbed about Governor Palin during the last few years and in particular since last August.

    Why can't we discuss things rationally as adults rather than resorting to lowest common denominator arguments? "He must be a moron because he misspelled Monegan's name!", like that invalidates the rest of the words? What the hell kind of childlike nonsensical reasoning is that?

    Now to hold up a mirror to all this finger pointing for just a moment, I must admit that I actually expected as much from "neocon wingnuts" (again, I'm a Republican, but think of Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt rather than G.W. Bush) which is why I literally spent all of Saturday afternoon until around 9:30PM editing it offline. I edited all of it in Notepad by the way, without a spelling checker. To describe the process -- once it was in its general form, I cut and pasted it into a submit post box on Blue Oasis whereupon I proceeded to correct the spelling and any grammatical wonkiness. There was a lot of wonkiness. Even the word wonkiness is wonky and probably misspelled.

    That Monegan's name was incorrect is a testament to my bad spelling and the simple fact that most spelling dictionaries DO NOT correct the proper names of anyone other than historical figures. I blame my spelling skills and a spelling dictionary that doesn't have "Monegan" within it. I already apologized for it above. I'm over it, so how about you?  A rational individual would see the error, know who I was referring to anyhow, shrug and move along to the SUBSTANCE.

    Anyhow, thanks for the comments and encouragement. I have no interest in reading personal attacks against me on their website as I already know that the neocon base and their divisive message only gets louder and more shrill as their base shrinks further and further. They will perhaps say this stance is "chickenshit" on my part but I say that if they want to address me directly then they need to man (and/or woman) up and register here using their real name. Talk to me, person to person on the forum where it was originally posted. Simple as that.

    Otherwise I consider their comments elsewhere to be a waste of my time and nothing more than desperate pleas for attention from individuals who have (unfortunately for us all) "drank the kool aid" concerning Sarah Palin's suitability to hold public office. I consider any sniping at me from C4P to be just a whole lot of additional noise from the cranky 19th century  tea bag fueled steam engine of their bloviating neocon propaganda machine. And frankly, right now none of we ALASKANS (conservatives, moderates, liberals, republicans, independents, democrats or libertarians, etc.) have time for THAT particular form of horseshit any longer.

(laughing while furiously double checking for spelling and grammar errors, of which I'm sure there are many...),

-Laz

Recall NOT Impeachment

by: lazarhat

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 23:25:01 PM AKDT

Article XI, Section 8 of the Alaska Constitution

AS 15.45.470-720 of the Alaska Statutes

Both are easy to locate via Google on the state of Alaska home page. Signs reading "Impeach Palin" are either deliberate and further obfuscation on someone's part or perhaps merely a total ignorance of the actual law and process itself.

-Laz

The forgotten point about the trouble with Sarah P.

by: lazarhat

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 22:42:13 PM AKDT

The issues of a) the exact amount of debt from Palin's legal bills and b) how much of that debt was incurred as a result of the complaint she filed against herself are hotly being pursued by my friend at Progressive Alaska, Phil Munger.  As I'll mention in my later post on the APOC meeting, that issue was also raised there. - promoted by Celtic Diva)

     This point bears repeating by all rational thinking Alaskans to both the MSM and to the blogosphere, no matter what the ideology, either yours or theirs -- the absolute fact that the bulk of Governor Palin's problems are self-inflicted.

    Ultimately she did not accept a bipartisan investigation of what is now known as "Troopergate" (or as she attempted to re-brand it: "Tasergate"), an investigation of allegations of possible abuse of power concerning the alleged repeated harassment of then Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, Walt Monhegan, by both her, her husband and senior members of her staff. This as well as the subsequent firing of Monhegan by Governor Palin allegedly for Monehgan's failure to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Wooten, for cause, which eventually resulted in the dismissal of Monhegan instead. By now we all should know the back story.

    This is how the legislative investigation was originally framed and the premise under which it was originally launched. This investigation was legally voted upon by a bi-partisan legislative coalition that contained a majority of republicans as well as their democratic counterparts. They hired a former prosecuting attorney for the state of Alaska, then openly appropriated money to pay for it and the whole process was then approved of by the majority of those same legislators both democratic and republican alike, and agreed to BY THE GOVERNOR. The investigator then issued subpoenas to all necessary parties and announced a date when they would begin the process of deposing those individuals. So far, so good. Prior to the McCain campaign announcement all parties agreed this was the best way to proceed. Again -- the horse left the barn BEFORE she was ever asked to be John McCain's VP running-mate.

    But as we all remember, she was soon asked and then she accepted McCain's offer to run as his VP nominee. After the legislative investigation had already began but only slightly before Branchflower's depositions were scheduled to begin. Then Governor Palin's administration threw a monkey wrench in the works. Her then attorney general, Talis Colberg (who I believe eventually resigned because of personal ethical embarrassment) openly advised those individuals to defy the subpoenas and began deposing them BEFORE independent investigator Stephen Branchflower could begin his depositions. He was hired by the legislature (and remember, accepted by the governor) precisely to keep the process open and transparent. Recall that in a publicly televised news conference, Governor Palin had agreed to this process saying that she "welcomed" it because she "had nothing to hide".

    Not to flog the metaphor further but the action of allowing someone appointed by her (AG Talis Colberg) to depose individuals ALREADY under a separate independent investigative subpoena gave the appearance that her administration had seemingly "jumped the horse" by allowing another executive branch appointee (Colberg, who owed his very job to her appointment) to proceed with his depositions prior to the independent investigator. Both the public AND the legislature cried foul with accusations of possible witness tampering followed by calls for the attorney general to resign which as I recall were seen in local media, mainstream media and amongst political bloggers as well as heard being discussed by many of her constituents in Alaska after the event occurred.

    When it appeared that perhaps it was in fact possibly extra-legal (meaning of course illegal) for a state attorney general to advise public
employees to willfully defy and refuse to cooperate with lawfully issued subpoenas instructing them to submit to public depositions, the governor then stole the horse and rode away with it. Colberg ceased deposing, apparently only having fully deposed her husband Todd, (parts of which it was said would later be included in Todd Palin's written deposition to both Branchflower AND the state personnel board).

    Wait! What? Yes, ANOTHER investigation and here comes the key crux of the problem for Governor Palin. This was not the original, open and transparent investigation headed up by an independent investigator who was hired PRIOR to her agreeing to be the McCain's VP-elect -- the one that all parties including her had agreed upon BEFORE the McCain campaign, but one in which she brought LEGAL ACTION AGAINST HERSELF, hiring an outside attorney to depose and investigate each and every individual that was ALREADY under the original Branchflower subpoena. He even got to do so BEFORE Branchflower. She also hired ANOTHER attorney, Thomas Van Flein, to be her personal attorney during this second investigation. The state paying for Tim Ptumenos and the personnel board investigation and Palin paying for Van Flein's services. IT IS Van Flein's services which make up the bulk of her current legal bills, NOT later ethics complaints.

    In fact Branchflower never got to speak personally to any of those to whom he had issued subpoenas, eventually accepting the depositions proffered by attorney Tim Ptumenos under the auspices of the investigation that he essentially ran FOR the State of Alaska Personnel Board AND which ultimately cost the state of Alaska nearly four times as much as the legislature had paid the independent investigator. Whew. Wheels within wheels within wheels. At this point the damn horse is riding itself. Or maybe they cloned a horse and it is riding the original horse. Or there are two symbiotic horses co-joined at the hip bone... whatever -- it's giving me a headache, as it should you.

    However and perhaps quite shrewdly on her and her lawyers part, this move of hiring yet another outside attorney (Ptumenos) may have helped shield the AG from any further appearance of impropriety by taking the heat off of Colberg and focusing everyone's attention on an investigation that was given an air of legitimacy by the governor herself (and in yet another news conference via a message issued from the self-named (and paid for by the McCain campaign) media flaks the "Truth Squad") because Mr. Ptumenos was in fact, a democrat himself! "What could be more bi-partisan, open and transparent than that?", the flaks reasoned aloud. And often. To anyone who would listen.

    I know this is all quite complicated when in fact it could have been so much easier to let Branchflower complete his investigation and release his findings. The problem is that I see all of this obfuscation, all this interference by the governor, her lawyers and her (paid by McCain) media flacks motivated precisely because when she realized the legislature were serious and were going to proceed deposing her, her husband and her staff over the issue of "Troopergate", she absolutely freaked. You know why? Because she DID have things to hide. Many, many things to hide. Mostly her naked political ambition, her mean spirited vindictiveness towards those she perceived as her political enemies as well as her husband's deep involvement in the case of his long term and seemingly systematic harassment of Walt Monhegan until, when Monhegan would not bend to her will regarding a possible Palin family vendetta against Trooper Wooten, she was left with no choice but to fire Monhegan as punishment for  Monhegan's apparent (at least to the Palin family) disloyalty.

    She successfully re-framed the investigation away from being one about ethics, (perhaps committing several more ethical lapses in the process in my opinion) and transformed it into one of it being a simple personnel dispute! Again I remind everyone at this point that the majority of her current legal bills and legal problems are because of an action which SHE BROUGHT AGAINST HERSELF when she re-framed this action as the only legitimate method of insuring a transparent investigation into something that she claimed was essentially a personnel disagreement (about a "rogue employee", Walt Monhegan) and one for which she had every right to engage in as both governor and head of the executive branch. Her claim was, ex-post-facto that the state personnel board was the more appropriate venue for review of the matter rather than the legislature. Where's that damn horse? I don't know! Do you know? Oh look! (pointing) There it is! (substituting another horse for the original one while attention was seemingly diverted away)... you get the idea. Lots of horses, many of them straw ones and lots of cowboys -- lawyers, legislators, other state employees and Todd and yet remarkably, no one can find a horse NOW because it was actually substituted with a pit bull. In lipstick.

    In the end she essentially won the battle but lost the WAR. Pun intended. Branchflower said ethical lapses happened but it was up to the legislature to decide the consequences and any actions or sanctions. Ptumenos and the state personnel board really don't go deep enough into it by not directly addressing any ethical issues because in their opinion she was within her right to dismiss Moneghan as head of the executive branch. He was an executive branch appointee, so it was within her right to dismiss him for any reason whatsoever. No ethical lapses are addressed in their report other than some vague platitudes of it being "possible" as issued to the local media by Ptumenos after their investigation concluded. Which leaves us where we all are today. Flogging a dead horse. Unfortunately for us and the horse.

    In the interest of full disclosure:

1) I am not nor or have I ever in my entire life been a member of the Democratic Party of Alaska or any other state. Those are public records and they can be verified were I to reveal my real name. Which is Randall Warner, by the way. To head off the possible apoplexy of Representative Mike Doogan that I may be some sort of paid DNC apparchik or just another disgruntled "nameless and faceless blogger" that "needs to get a life". I actually detest blogging for myself as it appears to me to resemble actual work, something for which I am averse especially when I'm not getting paid for said work. In addition I am not, nor have I ever been paid or employed by the RNC or the local republican party, its officers nor any of its members. Period. Full Stop.

2) I am not nor have I ever been paid one thin dime by anyone for any of the above. Not the DNC. Not the local democratic party. Not the RNC. Not the local republican party, nor any other parties. Nobody. Nothing. Nor am I a lawyer with an axe to grind with any of the parties involved. I am by trade a "Litigation Support Technician" and an underpaid one at that. I am sworn to confidentiality and uphold said confidentiality in ALL of the cases I deal with and I can say with 100% certainty that I have never touched, seen nor read any documents or materials pertaining to this or any other case regarding Palin or any other ethical complaints against her. My sources for my opinion are based solely upon information available to all of the public in newspapers, via news reporting on television or on the internet. My motivation is merely because I'm tired of the media circus surrounding both Palin and the State of Alaska, which I personally believe has made us collectively as a people and as a state a laughing stock to most of the rest of America thanks to her performance as a VP candidate and as a governor. Having disclosed my opinion and my real name I am most assuredly taking an enormous personal risk, but I am fed up sick and tired of ALL the horseplay from ALL the clowns in this media circus. Nothing personal but it's time we all start acting as adults and fellow human beings instead of partisan ass-hats. Again, see 1) above if you need to re-read it. Period. Full stop.

3) I am in fact a registered Republican and have been since the year Governor Palin was elected. I voted for her in the primaries. I voted for Andrew Halcro in the general election as he struck me as someone more prepared to run the business that is "The State of Alaska" than did Palin. I have never met, nor talked to Halcro, donated to his campaign nor any campaigns, republican, democratic or otherwise. And again, just in case you are not convinced, allow me to reiterate once again that I have not, nor have I ever received one thin dime nor any amount of money or gifts from Halcro nor ANY politician, party, campaign or private individual for this or any other opinion I choose to express as a private citizen in a public forum. Don't make me insist you re-read BOTH 1) and 2) above. Period. Full Stop.

4) This is not the product of some sort of DNC conspiracy. It ultimately is the product of my personal opinion and is taken directly from reading and viewing a multitude of public information sources, both local and national mainstream media as well as internet blogs and sites of ALL political ideologies, left center and right, progressive to moderate to conservative. Period. Full Stop.

5) My reason for posting this to Linda's blog is because we are old friends from the days when we were both struggling, working musicians. And no -- she's not paying me either. Nobody is paying her so how could she pay me? I merely admire her as a friend and fellow human being and I appreciate her braveness as a blogger and fellow human being. I respect her opinion and feel she is above contempt and without ethical stain. She writes from her gut, as do I, though she is much better at it than I because I KNOW I come off as a pompous ass owing to my formal and stilted writing style as opposed to her more understandable and far less complex style. I do not write for people with a 7th grade or 9th grade reading level as journalism instructors advise (and I am not saying she does), I write for people who aspire to higher thought, people who aren't afraid of education and intelligence. I write for political wonks when I motivate myself enough to write anything political because I AM ONE and were I to write in any other manner would be imprecise on my part. Words can be tricky, most especially in the realm of political opinion, and to be imprecise is to be accused of being "a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, Cheetos eating, parents basement dwelling hack". Or a "liar". I assure you that I live alone in an apartment in downtown Anchorage that I pay for myself and that I cannot stand Cheetos. The knuckle dragging and mouth breathing part I leave to others to either judge or disavow as it is not my job to form opinions of myself concerning those traits as expressed by some politicians towards political opinion bloggers critical of them or their politics. Hopefully and perhaps in spite of any differences of political opinion or party affiliation or even writing style, the feeling of admiration and respect is reciprocal from Linda. Period. Full Stop.

6) And lastly, these words are the product of several painstaking hours of thought on my part (did I mention that I'M NOT getting paid?) in an attempt to wrap my brain around this whole gigantic political circus. I have not knowingly omitted anything nor have I intentionally made up anything out of whole cloth. This is the truth as I see it. It is my perception, shared on a public forum as opinion. All grammar and spelling errors are my own and I apologize in advance to Representative Doogan (extra apoplexy-proofing) as I am NOT a paid journalist, though I was editor of my high school newspaper. One obviously in need of a good editor. And maybe some more classes in writing, English and journalism. Period. Full Stop.

Randall Warner
aka -Laz

Predators and Politics

by: aTypicalProgressive

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 21:00:00 PM AKST

Sarah Palin raised the ire of environmentalists and mixed feelings from the public since she became governor in 2006.  The latest debate between the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (DoWAF) and Sarah Palin continues the decades old controversy regarding predator wolf control and its methods.  As governor, Palin attempted to circumvent or supersede existing laws and the will of the people.  DoWAF's issues involve various predators but this article will focus just on aerial killing of wolves, the subject of their recently released video.

Looking back to the last century, such controversies occurred before Alaska attained statehood and since.  Former Alaskan governors, hunters, non-hunters, and various conservation groups battled over methods used to control wolves as predators.  Aerial wolf hunting has been controversial in Alaska for at least several decades.  Throughout the predator control controversy, one issue that remained in the back burner is the need for plentiful moose and caribou by Natives and others who subsist with a dependence on wild meat for food.  

Wayne L. Regelin Alaska of the Department of Fish and Game wrote in March 2002 the "Historic Perspective of Wolf Management in Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game".  It's a short history of wolf control issues.  Clearly events since 2002 extend this history and illustrate the difficulties in reaching lasting consensus.  Each gubernatorial administration introduced its own policies and outlook that inflamed or subdued the fray.

The principles established during former Governor Knowles' administration and the 10 conclusions reached in 2002 by Wayne L. Regelin serve as suitable guides for future activities.  Before Palin, Alaskan voters voted more than once against aerial killing as a means to control predators.  The primary state elections were held on August 26, 2008 and on that day, a majority of Alaskans voted to continue aerial killing of wolves.  Opponents of aerial wolf control accused the state government of linguistic trickery used on the ballot.  Were voters tricked or did they understand the ballot wording and changed their minds?  Considering past controversies, this issue will appear on some future ballot when another governor will be elected.

Defenders of Wildlife issued a "Brief History of Wolf Control in Alaska".  Their very brief version of the history lists significant events since 1915.

The Wikipedia article "Wolf Hunting" is more general and covers centuries of humans dealing with wolves in various parts of the world.

Sarah Palin is a lighting rod for controversy so it's not surprising this confrontation has a political dimension specifically involving her.  Yesterday, she released a statement that epitomizes her trademark hypocrisy and lack of forethought.  

First, Palin lambasted DoWAF for distorting the issue and neglecting the needs of Alaska's subsistence residents who depend on wild meat for food.  But Palin has no qualms refusing to help subsistence residents in Emmonak and other villages severely affected by bad fish catch and record high fuel prices.  

"Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can't be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations."

Second, Palin accused DoWAF of taking donor money from people who need it in these hard economic times.  Palin hardly considered people's economic struggles when she raised taxes, put Wasilla $20M in debt, and paid TransCanada $500M for a pipeline study when the budget is beholden to significantly low oil prices and drastic cuts.  

"Shame on the Defenders of Wildlife for twisting the truth in an effort to raise funds from innocent and hard-pressed Americans struggling with these rough economic times."

Since Palin claims to be concerned about the economic well being of DoWAF donors, will she issue a statement advising anyone with economic hardship NOT to donate to her SarahPAC?  Is she genuinely concerned for people's monetary assets or competing for donor dollars and soliciting future votes?

Her recent hiring freeze attests to the severity of the state's economic future.  Yet her propensity to propose and promote magnanimous projects contradict her claims to practicing fiscal conservatism.  Palin proposed a road to Nome, a project recommended by others in the past.  Such a road would provide commercial benefits but who will pay the estimated $2 billion for construction and maintenance afterwards?  A pipeline running from the North Slope to Alberta Canada would facilitate exportation of natural gas to Canada and the Lower 48.  Who will pay the estimated $30-$40 billion with an estimated project life of up to 20 years because of lengthy contentious land disputes between pipeline owners and Natives in America and Canada?  A gas pipeline running from the North Slope to South Central Alaska would avail natural gas and satisfy environmentalists but where will the money come from?  More roads will be needed for this gas line.  The bailout fund currently debated in Congress is slated for shovel ready projects.

The issues regarding wildlife population control are inescapably mired by politics and other issues.  It will be a long slog.

News Media and Gripes

by: aTypicalProgressive

Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:56:38 PM AKST

The news media began before the first newspaper and dramatically evolved from the first single sheet newspaper printed in a makeshift print shop to its current development.  Technology and economic based transformations aren't new to news media.  The last few decades saw more technological advancements than the last few centuries.  The last several years have been tumultuous particularly for the print media and the painstaking developments will continue till stasis will be reached.  

Internet and related digital technologies facilitated the creation of a new and more powerful news media with its round the clock release of information in greater quantity, easier access, wide paperless distribution, lower costs, two way communication between publishers and readers/listeners/viewers, citizen journalists, bloggers, advertising, etc.  

Internet based news overshadowed the print media's centuries long dominance.  Publishing technologies except hardcopy printing were encompassed by internet news.  This and major shifts in advertising methods drove many newspapers and magazines out of business.  TV news media has been reduced in scope, wealth and viewers.  Winners surfaced and losers sank in the revolution that's yet complete.  

Amazingly, one aspect remains through the centuries regardless of the medium, the controversy regarding the nature and purpose of news.  Are news factual, untrue, commentary, opinion, fair, balanced, acceptable, unacceptable, or otherwise?  What are the limits and how far should they be pushed?  

Sarah Palin is the latest politician to revive this controversy by expressing the following statements during three separate instances.

1)  October 31, 2008 - "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."  Palin doesn't realize free speech is a two way street.

2)  November 10, 2008 - "kids in pajamas sitting in the basement of their parents' homes", was her snide perception of bloggers and blog participants.

3)  January 13, 2009 - Sarah criticized Alaska Daily News and journalism in general by stating "Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me....And I thought, Okay, more indication of continued problems in the world of journalism."  Sarah offended all bloggers and blog participants including those who support her.

Palin clashed with the news media long ago as Wasilla's mayor and indicated on occasion her desire to change it.  However naive and sophomoric her perspective is, she is not alone.  Who hasn't criticized the news media?  Some media members criticize other media members, in some cases with a near cannibalistic fervor.  Regardless of the medium, hardcopy, radio, TV, digital recording, or the internet, criticisms of the news media abound and outnumber praises.  Journalism has been attacked for centuries and Palin's contempt and disdain for the news media won't impact the profession.  If anything, it impacted her.

A recent NY Times article covers an exhibit of the history of newspapers and touches upon the controversy related to newspapers since their inception almost 400 years ago.  The first English language newspaper was published in 1620, the same year the Mayflower arrived at Plymouth.  The origins of journalism are far less debatable and consequential than its nature and purpose.  

Marshall McLuhan's famous dogma "The medium is the message" rings true through the years and news sources are subjected to criticism regardless of the medium.  Newspapers, magazines and other news sources that migrate or expand to the internet don't evade scrutiny and the barrage of flack and critique.  If anything, they receive more after adding blogs to their web sites and widening their exposure.  

Hardly anyone of reasonable mind regards the news media as perfect but ultimately we as individuals and a society are much better off with it.  Especially when it's free of clutching controlling demagogues manipulating the media for their personal gains.