Weasels in Congress Plan to Allow Offshore Drilling

Posted on September 4, 2008 by RagBlog


Senate Democrats to push bipartisan drilling bill
By Mary Clare Jalonick / September 4, 2008

Democratic leaders in the Senate plan to push a bipartisan energy proposal that would allow for some expansion of offshore drilling when Congress returns next week from a five-week recess.

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in the Senate plan to push a bipartisan energy proposal that would allow for some expansion of offshore drilling when Congress returns next week from a five-week recess.

The plan that would allow Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina to opt into leasing programs starting 50 miles off their shores now has the support of 16 senators – eight Democrats and eight Republicans.

However, it is expected to face opposition from lawmakers in both parties, and with Congress planning to meet for only three weeks before recessing again for the November election, its prospects are dim.

The proposal, not yet introduced as legislation, would also lift a ban on drilling off the Gulf coast of Florida, invest $20 billion on developing petroleum-free motor vehicles and extend expiring tax credits for renewable energy.

Many Republicans, including President Bush, would like to see the moratorium on drilling lifted along the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Some Democrats are unlikely to support any measure that includes increased offshore drilling.

“This is going to be hard to do, we are under no illusion here,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who led the negotiations on the proposal with Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. “But we’ve tried to put something together that is responsible and broad-based and bipartisan, and I think it’s got a shot.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is working with the supporters to get it on the floor “as quickly as possible” after the Senate returns Monday, said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. “It appears that this proposal is picking up steam on both sides of the aisle,” Manley added.

When the proposal was introduced in early August, Reid said he did not agree with every part of it. Manley said Reid still believes drilling “is not the answer to everything” but is a comprehensive approach that could be a way to forge a compromise on the issue.

Six senators signed on to the proposal last week, including Republican Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John Sununu of New Hampshire. Both are facing competitive re-election bids this fall as high energy prices have become a touchy political issue.

Other Republicans supporting the proposal are John Thune of South Dakota, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Warner of Virginia.

Democratic supporters include Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Tom Carper of Delaware and Ken Salazar of Colorado. Landrieu also is in a tight race for re-election in November.

Source / The Seattle Times

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Thursday Thought: The Bells Aren’t Always Audible

Posted on September 4, 2008 by RagBlog


John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young laying hens, called “pullets”, and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John’s favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

To John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak so it couldn’t ring. He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch that he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair, and he became an overnight sensation among the judges. The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention?

Vote carefully this year … the bells are not always audible.

(Peace)

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens | The Rag Blog | Posted September 4, 2008

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

On Not Winning BushCo’s War of Terror

Posted on September 4, 2008 by RagBlog

NATO Forces Not Likely to Make Any Significant Headway in Afghanistan – Taliban Confident in Ghazni

And there’s this closely related story about the Northwest Tribal areas of Pakistan:

The Rag Blog / Posted September 4, 2008

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Attacking in Pakistan While No One’s Looking

Posted on September 3, 2008 by RagBlog


NATO ground troops attack Taliban stronghold in Pakistan, officials say
By Huma Yusuf / September 3, 2008

The raid may be the first time the US has sent troops into Pakistan. Prior attacks attributed to US forces were conducted with drones.

NATO and US ground troops attacked three houses near a Taliban and Al Qaeda stronghold in South Waziristan, a tribal area in Pakistan, on Wednesday, Pakistani officials said. At least 15 people – mostly civilians – are said to have been killed in the attack. Unlike previous NATO airstrikes in the region, this involved the deployment of ground troops. The attack comes in the wake of the Pakistan military’s announcement of a cease-fire with militants in the northern and tribal areas to observe the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

According to The New York Times, the attack has been confirmed by the governor of the North West Frontier Province, a Taliban commander, and eyewitnesses. US and NATO officials in Afghanistan have not yet commented on the reported strike.

The attacks were aimed at three houses in the village of Jala Khel in the Angoor Adda area of South Waziristan, less than a mile from the border with Afghanistan, the Taliban commander and local residents said.

The helicopter attacks occurred at about 3 a.m. and killed 20 people, according to the provincial governor, Owais Ahmed Ghani said….

A Taliban commander, known by the nom de guerre Commander Malang, said the attack took place close to a Pakistani military position on the border and killed 15 people. But the Pakistani military took no action, he said.

The BBC reports that ground troops were deployed as part of the attack. The report emphasizes that while airstrikes by coalition forces in Afghanistan against Pakistani militant targets have previously occurred, “a raid by ground troops would be rare.”

Locals say three helicopter gunships dropped international troops in the Musa Nikeh area of South Waziristan, located on the border with Afghanistan, overnight.

They say the soldiers killed more than a dozen people with gunfire and bombs, including women and children.

“Troops came in helicopters and carried out action in three houses,” Gul Nawaz, a shopkeeper, told Reuters news agency.

Witnesses told the BBC Urdu service that troops entered the house of a local tribesman, opened fire and then lobbed a bomb in the house. They said at least nine bodies had been recovered from the debris. The witnesses said the family was not known for links with militants.

According to a private Pakistani cable channel, local tribesmen, who were awake at the time of the attack to prepare for the day’s fast, responded by chanting anti-American slogans, reports United Press International.

Pakistani authorities believe the attack was aimed at a particular militant target, reports Voice of America.

Pakistan Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar told reporters in Lahore that the country’s foreign office is investigating.

He says he does not have details. Mukthar says three houses were targeted by NATO forces and theorizes the strike had a specific target.

NATO and US-led airstrikes against militant targets in Pakistan are controversial as they are perceived to violate national sovereignty, reports the Associated Press.

The United States and Pakistan, allies in the war on terror, have had tensions over cross-border attacks, including a series of suspected American missile strikes which have killed two senior al-Qaida operatives in Pakistani territory this year….

AP reported last year that U.S. rules of engagement allowed ground forces to go a little over six miles into Pakistan when in hot pursuit, and when forces were targeted or fired on by the enemy. U.S. rules allow aircraft to go 10 miles into Pakistan air space.

Pakistani officials protest that cross-border strikes are a violation of their sovereignty. They plead with U.S. and NATO commanders to share intelligence and allow Pakistani troops to carry out all raids on their territory.

In a separate incident on Wednesday, bullets were fired at the motorcade of Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on the Islamabad Highway, reports Pakistani daily The News. The prime minister and his entourage were not harmed in the attack. The News also reports that militants from the Swat Valley, the site of recent military operations, have claimed responsibility for the attack.

Source / Christian Science Monitor

Reported U.S. attack upsets Pakistan
By Mark Sappenfield, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 4, 2008

US forces may have sent in ground troops for the first time Wednesday. Were they targetting a top Taliban or Al Qaeda figure?

New Delhi – A high-ranking Pakistani official has alleged that American ground forces crossed over from Afghanistan to carry out an attack on Pakistan soil.

While the United States has frequently been connected with missile attacks in Pakistan – usually carried out by pilotless drone aircraft – this claim, if true, would mark “a threshold being crossed,” says Ikram Sehgal, editor of Defence Journal in Karachi, Pakistan.

US forces have so far not been definitively linked to any ground operations in Pakistan, and the Pakistan government has repeatedly said it will not allow such an operation – which it calls a violation of national sovereignty – to take place.

Yet Owais Ahmed Ghani, who oversees Pakistan’s restive tribal areas as governor of the North West Frontier Province, said American commandos with support from three helicopter gunships attacked a Pakistani village near the Afghan border.

“At least 20 innocent civilians of Pakistan including women and children were martyred,” he said.

The attack took place near Angoor Ada, a town in the South Waziristan tribal agency, according to Pakistan Army spokesman Maj. Murad Khan.

But claims of a NATO raid could not be verified. Indeed there was some confusion within Pakistan itself as to the nature of the attack. The Pakistani defense minister, Ahmad Mukhtar, referred to the attack as an airstrike. He also speculated that the raid targeted a specific Taliban or Al Qaeda figure.

A spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan refused comment. Defense officials at the Pentagon and at US Central Command, Tampa, Fla., would not confirm the incident and also had no further comment Wednesday morning.

The US says Pakistan’s tribal regions along the Afghan border have become a haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It has pressured Pakistan to fight militancy in its country, while also weighing how aggressively it can carry out strikes of its own.

Even on a day when Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s motorcade was fired upon, the allegations of a US attack in South Waziristan was leading Pakistani news. “People are not going to take it lightly,” says Mr. Sehgal.

Pakistanis have long resented what they see as US interference in their country, most notably in the support the US gave to a succession of military dictators, most recently former President Pervez Musharraf. Many will take this as confirmation of US meddling. The government must strongly condemn the attack if it is to retain some of the progress it has made in recent months on the security issue, says Mahmood Shah, a former secretary of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Since talks with the Taliban broke down and Pakistan resumed military operations in FATA, several tribal leaders have joined the government’s side, forming militias to fight the Taliban.

In the hours after the allegations of an attack, “people have already started talking against the government,” Mr. Shah says, suggesting that people see the government as complicit or too weak to stand up to the Americans.

“If America starts pulling their [the government’s] leg in this fashion, then it will go the same way as General Pervez Musharraf,” who resigned as president last month, he adds.

The top presidential contender in Saturday’s election to replace Mr. Musharraf, Asif Zardari, is “seen as supported by the US,” says Sehgal.

Mr. Zardari recently called for a cease-fire in the tribal regions in observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan – in part to distance himself from this perception and to win votes for the election. His election seems assured, since the president is elected by provincial parliaments and the national assembly. His coalition has a majority. But the allegations of the attack could undermine what public support he has. “The timing is a bit of a surprise,” says Sehgal.

Gordon Lubold contributed from Washington. Wire material was also used.

Source / Christian Science Monitor

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Postcards About Palin : What Some Alaskans Say About Sarah

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Thorne Dreyer


‘Alaskans in general do not give a rat’s ass about anything outside of Alaska’
By Mariannn G. Wizard / The Rag Blog / September 3, 2008

While working in Alaska in 2004, I met people from all of AK’s many political parties as well as independent voters, from a fairly wide range of ages, lifestyles and economic levels. I’ve tried to keep in touch with quite a few of them, but one major fact that people in the “lower 48” should try to get their heads around when looking at Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential nominee is that Alaskans in general do not give a rat’s ass about anything outside of Alaska.

AK is too big, with a still smallish and rather closely-knit population spread over a vast expanse, too distant geographically, and just too darn different to feel much in common with “outsiders”, which is what anyone not from Alaska is, and remains for some unspecified number of winters. (I only made it through one.) The geographic distance mandates more than the 13 hour travel time (at best) from the lower 48; it results in a 3 hour time difference. Network news shows and prime time programming take place in mid-afternoon in Alaska, and are generally ignored. News of non-Alaskan issues reaches AK late if at all, and seems so far away and so unimportant, while Alaskan concerns rarely surface in the “national” media.

There are still a few folks I met and worked with in 04 who I hear from every now and again. Several days ago I asked them what they can tell us about Gov. Palin. Here are excerpted replies from three men and three women, including 5 whites and one Native Alaskan, and two former candidates for political office in Alaska

“Apart from her outspoken pro-life conservative Christian thing, she’s pro-drilling, pro-wolf killing, pro-mining, but strangely estranged from the rest of the radical republicans in Alaska on the issue of oil company influence. regular people here LOVE her, state house and senate members fear her disdain. she’s really a hockey mom and a beauty queen. i think America’s non-D moms and Nascar types will love her. her husband’s a tough guy who wins 1500 mile snowmobile races, works on the slope, and used to be (maybe still is) a commercial fisherman – but is also a great dad. she’s a great mom.

She’s not a good speaker, but she’s very very photogenic and appears real, very poised, and never plastic on TV though she gets her facts messed up. you can see her flubbing some facts on the Charlie Rose show archive. I predict she’ll add 5 points to McCain’s vote percentage, making it very close in November.”

“In the recent upheaval over the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and the push to have him fire Trooper Wooten, Palin has lied, flip-flopped and covered-up her actions and those of others until finally someone fell on the sword for her. So she has people around her stupid enough to do these things for her and then take the fall when the shit hits the fan. So maybe she is “ready” to be in national office because that is what America has been accepting for the last eight years.

But is that leadership? I think not

Is that leadership I want in Washington? Not just N0! But, HELL NO!!!!”

“She’s good for us but not with McCain.”

“Sarah Palin is a high school prom queen with a passive aggressive past, a serious ego, far better a person than [former AK Governor] Frank Murkowski is/was, and a better governor too.

But she’s embroiled in the current “Trooper-gate,’” wherein it appears that she used her position to apply pressure to have her sister’s ex-husband (a Trooper with a tainted career record) fired. She insists that she never advised anyone to pursue the ex-brother-in-law, but it looks kinda’ fishy…

She claims to have “smoked marijuana in Alaska when it was legal, but I didn’t like it…” apparently choosing to avoid the controversy over the fact that the Ravin Decision [ratifying AK’s constitutional privacy provisions even for marijuana] is still the law, as well as appearing somewhat dishonest…perhaps she’s afflicted by Bill Clintonitis… instead of claiming not to have inhaled, she’s in essence saying that she inhaled, but that the whole affair was miserable. During her campaign trail speeches for Governor, she admitted smoking pot, but stated that she hadn’t done so since becoming a mother… No references back then…to the now-reported miserableness of it …

She DID say back then that they had methamphetamine and other more serious issues to focus on in the Mat-Su Valley, than reefer growers and smokers …

As Mayor of Wasilla, she reportedly fired a police chief while he was away on vacation, apparently not having the integrity and confrontational skills to address him more directly upon his return … Similar antics in the current ‘Trooper-gate’ affair …

She managed to distance most of the old neo-con guard in Alaska, which is all right by me. … but given a choice to have a friendly meal with either her or [iconic former AK governor] Jay Hammond, I’d likely dine with Jay. Of course, reaching up Jay’s skirt wouldn’t be nearly as pleasing, I presume.. but one can’t have EVERYTHING, I guess…. And seriously, just as JFK’s attractiveness to many women voters played a role in his election, many persons find Sarah to be quite the eye candy as well…
.
She’s a pro-life, sometimes-libertarian-minded, aging rock’n’roller, prom queen with an ego the size of two or three of mine.. But I think that politics is like honey to flies in re. to attracting narcissists. Seriously.”

“Her world view is Wasilla and the Mat-Su Valley. She doesn’t work for Alaska as a whole as governor; she wouldn’t have a clue how to work for the whole nation…. Also she hasn’t been through the fire, politically; she’s never taken on an issue and gotten her ass kicked, so that would be new for her ….”

“I’m hopelessly in love with these two! Senator John McCain and Cindy McCain for choosing Governor Sarah Palin as his veep! These two are pea pods, mirror images of one another!

As far as troopergate, Bristolgate, well life happens!

I’m solid McCain/Palin. Someone pinch me, I must be dreaming!` …Senator McCain and Governor Sarah Palin ROCK!”

***

I’m not entirely sure whether that last one is intended sarcastically or sincerely… but that’s those Alaskans for you!

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Direct From Wasilla : Whassup With Sarah…

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Thorne Dreyer


Speaking of Sarah Palin : From one who knows her
By Anne Kilkenny / The Rag Blog / September 3, 2008

So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last two days that I decided to write something up . . . Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only two things in common: their gender and their good looks. 🙂

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child’s favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won’t vote for her can’t quit smiling when talking about her because she is a “babe”.

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is “pro-life”. She recently gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby.

There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn’t take positions; she just “puts things out there” and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She’s smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her six years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million.

What did Mayor Palin encouragethe voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today’s surplus, borrow for needs.

She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

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

Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of “old boys”. Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal–loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska’s top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it’s pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than two dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues.

Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects–which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance–but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah’s mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT

• “Hockey mom”: True for a few years.

• “PTA mom”: True years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since.

• “NRA supporter”: Absolutely true.

• Social conservative: Mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).

• Pro-creationism: Mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.

• “Pro-life”:Mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life Legislation.

• “Experienced”:Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000

• Political maverick: Not at all.

• Gutsy: Absolutely!

• Open and transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.

• Has a developed philosophy of public policy: No

• A “Greenie”: No. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.

• Fiscal conservative: Not by my definition!

• Pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.

• Pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.

• Pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.

• Pro-labor/pro-union: No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I’ve always operated in the belief that “Bad things happen when good people stay silent”. Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don’t have a job she can bump me out of. I don’t belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS

I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can’t recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall–they are swamped. So I can’t verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my “about 5,000”, up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Iraq Report: the al Anbar Handover

Posted on September 3, 2008 by RagBlog

Sergeant Jesse E. Leach carries Lance Corporal Juan Valdez-Castillo after he was shot by a sniper during a patrol in Anbar Province, Iraq on October 31, 2006. (Photo: Joao Silva for The New York Times)

The Fake U.S. Victory in Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn / September 3, 2008

Political events in Iraq are seldom what they seem. The hand-over by the US military of control of Anbar province, once the heartland of the Sunni rebellion, to Iraqi forces is a case in point. The US will keep 25,000 American soldiers in Anbar, so the extent to which the Iraqi government will really take over is debatable. But the future of Anbar is a crucial pointer to the fate of Iraq. It is a vast area and one of the few parts of Iraq that is overwhelmingly Sunni.

The Iraqi government is dominated by Shia Islamic parties in alliance with Kurdish nationalists. The vital question now is whether or not this Shia-dominated government can reassure the Sunni minority that they are not going to be overrun as the US withdraws its forces. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is in a very confident mood. In the past four months he feels he has successfully faced down the Shia militiamen of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by taking back control of Basra, Sadr City and Amarah. Then he refused to sign a new security accord with the US which President George Bush wanted to see agreed by August 31.

In the past few weeks he has been confronting his Kurdish allies over the future of the oil city of Kirkuk and the town of Khanaqin.

Mr Maliki may be overplaying his hand but there is no doubt that the Iraqi state is becoming more powerful in Iraq and the Mahdi Army, the Americans and the Kurds less so. The Americans in particular feel that he exaggerates the extent to which his success against the Mahdi Army was because of the new strength of the Iraqi security forces.

These troops were doing badly until they received American support. Nevertheless, Mr Maliki’s position is strong. He seems to have realized that he may need the US, but the US also cannot do without him and is in no position to replace him as it did with his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

Much of what the White House is now doing is done to help the Republicans in the presidential election. The aim is to give the impression that Iraq has finally come right for the US and victory is finally in its grasp. The surge is promoted as the strategy by which the tide was turned and it is true that the Sunni uprising against the US occupation has largely ended.

But it has done so for reasons that have little to do with the surge or American actions of any kind. Crucial to the success of the government against the Mahdi Army has been the support of Iran. It is they who arranged for the Shia militiamen to go home.

It takes real cheek for Mr Bush to claim yesterday that “Anbar is no longer lost to al-Qa’ida” since during the last presidential election in 2004, he was claiming that the media was exaggerating the success of the insurgents.

Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.”

Source / CounterPunch

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ron Paul : My Convention is Bigger Than Your Convention

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Thorne Dreyer

Joyous Ron Paul supporters lined the street Tuesday in front of the Target Convention Center in Minneapolis. Paul appeared on stage to the roars of fervent followers, most of whom traveled long distances and waited as long as eight hours to see him. Photo by John Tlumacki / Boston Globe.

Ron Paul draws more people and more excitement than John McCain’s show across town — but he also attracts some scary ‘old friends.’
By Alex Koppelman / September 3, 2008

MINNEAPOLIS — If you were in the Twin Cities on Tuesday, you could be forgiven for thinking that Republicans had to come to Minnesota to nominate Ron Paul instead of John McCain. At St. Paul’s Xcel Center, where the real Republican convention is being held, a substantial number of seats remained empty. Next door in Minneapolis, however, a wildly enthusiastic crowd came close to filling the Target Center, capacity 10,000, where the Paul-ist faithful had gathered for their own quasi-convention to pay tribute to the Texas congressman, failed GOP presidential candidate and Libertarian hero.

The event, dubbed the “Rally for the Republic,” was a daylong affair that marked the formal end of Paul’s quixotic presidential run as well as, attendees hoped, the beginning of a Paul-sparked revolution in American government. The crowd defied the easy stereotypes that attached themselves to Paul’s supporters during the Paul-mania of winter and spring — the conspiracy-addled Web dweller, the Libertarian eccentric, the kid who only knows that Paul opposed the war. Sure, there was the occasional coonskin cap (and Daniel Boone-style frontier outfit), one man who appeared to be in Colonial dress and at least a couple of dreadlocked youths. The most striking thing about the people at the Target Center, however, was that they seemed so damn normal. But underneath the normality, and unbeknown to many in attendance, there lurked some of the dark undercurrents that have been present in the Paul movement all along.

Much of the energy that propelled Paul to the spotlight earlier this election cycle came from passionate neophytes. Many of those at the Target Center said they hadn’t cared about politics before they first heard the Texas Republican speak. Some had come hundreds of miles just to be there — like 23-year-old Tim Regnier and 21-year-old Nicole Wagner, who had driven seven hours from the Chicago suburbs. “We just wanted to show that the movement’s not going to die,” Regnier said. Justin Spyres, 27, said he “flew out from California just to be a part” of the rally. “I’m unemployed, I don’t have any income,” Spyres said, “but we made it work.”

Others at the Target Center, however, have deeper roots in American politics, specifically its far-right fringe, and longer ties with the star of the show. For years, Paul has attracted support from right-wing radicals and even white supremacists, and he hasn’t exactly run from that part of his fan base. Newbies like Regnier were on the floor, but some of the radicals were onstage, hidden in plain sight.

There was a furor earlier this year when the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick dug up some old newsletters put out under Paul’s name that smacked of racism. (In some, African-Americans were called “animals.” One issue, Kirchick noted, “ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after [Martin Luther] King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives.”) Onstage at the Paul rally on Tuesday was Lew Rockwell; credible evidence suggests Rockwell may have ghostwritten much of the controversial material in those newsletters. (Rockwell denies this.)

There, also, was Howard Phillips, a self-described “old friend” of Paul’s, and one of the founders of, and a former presidential candidate for, the far-right Constitution Party. Phillips has long maintained ties to the Christian reconstructionist movement, and has advocated a “return to Godly, Biblically based constitutional government.” His party’s platform includes dark mentions of the “New World Order.”

And there was a special guest, whose name was kept secret until he hit the stage: John McManus, president of the John Birch Society. The JBS is perhaps best known for having opposed fluoridation of drinking water as a communist plot; it was kicked out of the American political conversation decades ago after — among other things — its founder called Dwight Eisenhower “a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.” But at the Target Center, McManus was one of the stars of the day, and he was clearly enjoying himself, basking in the applause. He got a grateful response when he announced that Paul will headline JBS’s 50th anniversary dinner this fall.

A good many of those in attendance had not yet been born when the JBS had its heyday, and a fair number of the people Salon spoke with afterward had never heard of it. A few, however, had become familiar with the group, even joined it, because of their association with the Paul campaign.

The mainstream, however, at least the conservative division, was well represented. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent GOP activist, spoke. MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson served as emcee. “I’m not endorsing anybody,” Carlson told Salon, adding that there “are things I disagree with” about Paul’s philosophy. He was there, he said, because they’d asked him to be and because he admires Paul for sticking up for personal liberties. He also praised the people who’d come to the Target Center. “I admire the fact that they don’t get anything out of it — nobody’s going to be ambassador to Belgium for supporting Ron Paul.”

“I don’t like the thing we do in the media,” said Carlson, “this dismissive thing — ‘Oh, they’re just crazy.’ And I do it too. That’s a low impulse. I think if you’re going to say that, you should be required to offer some proof.”

Another semi-mainstream figure almost stole Paul’s show. Former pro wrestler and Minnesota Gov. Jesse “The Body” Ventura was a clear crowd favorite — a diversion into some 9/11 Truther rhetoric didn’t hurt him — and he got some attention for hinting at a presidential run, promising that if the U.S. “shows me that it’s worth it, in 2012, we’ll give them a race they’ll never forget.”

There were plenty of delegates from that other convention in attendance as well, most pledged to Paul but some to McCain. The GOP delegates with whom Salon spoke were universally more excited about Tuesday’s event than they were about the rest of the week, and said their fellow GOP delegates had been supportive. “We agree on so much … we’re trying to build bridges,” said David Fischer, an alternate Paul delegate from Iowa who described himself as a “lifelong Republican” who hadn’t been inspired to become a delegate to the GOP convention until Paul’s candidacy. Some of the GOP Paul delegates, like Fischer, said they’d vote for McCain in November, but others weren’t sure.

Marc Lucca, a Paul supporter and delegate from Oregon who’d been a field director with Victory 2004, the Republican effort to reelect President Bush, said, “I would likely support McCain if he is the nominee,” but added, “I would like to see John McCain not take my vote and the votes of millions of other conservatives for granted.”

Thomas Kiene of Oklahoma, a reluctant McCain delegate — he preferred Paul, he said, but his district went for McCain — was less generous. He called the GOP convention itself a “railroaded show.”

“I was over there yesterday and it made me sick,” Kiene said. His vote is pledged to McCain, but he’s not happy about it, and says he’s considering not voting at all. “I’ll be there. Maybe as an observer more than a participant. Whether I let my alternate cast my vote or not, I don’t know.”

At least one longtime Libertarian was excited to see the turnout, and to see the wide array of people and opinions the movement is now attracting, even if he doesn’t agree with the philosophies of some of the groups represented. “It’s a wide, weird tent,” said Kerry Welsh of Redondo Beach, Calif., who says he’s donated more than $100,000 to Paul and other Libertarians over the years. “All I can say is that freedom brings in a wide assortment of people … Imagine what would happen if someone like Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney held a rally like this now? Nobody would attend, because they don’t stand for anything.”

Source / salon.com

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Joseph Stiglitz on the Economy : Falling Down

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Thorne Dreyer

‘London Bridge’ (1616) by Claes Van Visscher. This engraving shows Old London Bridge in 1616, with Southwark Cathedral in the foreground. The spiked heads of executed criminals can be seen above the Southwark gatehouse. Some of Old London Bridge did indeed fall down. The rest succumbed to war and progress.


No manufacturing. No new ideas. What’s our economy based on?
By Joseph Stiglitz / September 3, 2008

More than 75 years ago, confidence in the market economy got a rude shock as the world sank into the Great Depression. Adam Smith had said that the market led the economy, as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency and societal wellbeing. It was hard to believe that Smith was right when one in four Americans was out of a job. Some economists held true to their faith in self-regulating markets; they said, just be patient, in the long run the market’s restorative forces will take hold, and we will recover. But Keynes’s retort ruled the day: In the long run, we are all dead. We could not wait. Today, even conservatives believe that government should intervene to maintain the economy at or near full employment

Those who believe in free markets have now received another rude shock: We have not yet sunk into an “official” recession, but it has been more than half a year since any new jobs were created, and, meanwhile, our labor force continues to grow. If the Great Depression undermined our confidence in macroeconomics (the ability to maintain full employment, price stability, and sustained growth), it is our confidence in microeconomics (the ability of markets and firms to allocate labor and capital efficiently) that is now being destroyed. Resources were misallocated and risks were mismanaged so severely that the private sector had to go running to the government for help, lest the entire system melt down. Even with federal intervention, I have estimated the cumulative gap between what our economy could have produced–had we invested in actual businesses, rather than, say, mortgages for people who couldn’t afford their homes–and what we will produce over the period of our slowdown to be more than $1.5 trillion.

Blame has rightly fallen on the financial markets because it is their responsibility to allocate capital and manage risk, and their failure has revived several old concerns of the political (and economic) left. Some looking at the U.S. economy’s decreasing reliance on manufacturing and increasing dependence on the service sector (including financial services) have long worried that the whole thing was a house of cards. After all, aren’t “hard objects”–the food we eat, the houses we live in, the cars and airplanes that we use to transport us from one place to another, the gas and oil that provides heat and energy–the “core” of the economy? And if so, shouldn’t they represent a larger fraction of our national output?

The simple answer is no. We live in a knowledge economy, an information economy, an innovation economy. Because of our ideas, we can have all the food we can possibly eat–and more than we should eat–with only 2 percent of the labor force employed in agriculture. Even with only 9 percent of our labor force in manufacturing, we remain the largest producer of manufactured goods. It is better to work smart than to work hard, and our investments in education and technology have enabled us to enjoy higher standards of living–and to live longer–than ever before. America’s dominance in so many aspects of high-tech is testimony to the real returns to these soft expenditures. Indeed, I would argue that we would do even better if we had more resources in these sectors.

But the view that our recent success is based on a house of cards has more than a grain of truth to it. In recent years, financial markets created a giant rich man’s casino, in which well-off players could take trillion dollar bets against each other. I am among those who believe that consenting adults should be allowed great freedom in what they do–as long as they don’t harm others. But there’s the rub. These high-rollers weren’t just gambling their own money. They were gambling other people’s money. They were putting at risk the entire financial system–indeed, our entire economic system. And now we are all paying the price.

Financial markets have been likened to the brain of the economy. They are supposed to allocate capital and manage risk. When they do their job well, economies prosper. When they do their job badly, as we are once again learning, everyone suffers. Financial markets are amply rewarded for their work–in recent years, they have received over 30 percent of corporate profits–and the standard mantra in economics was that these rewards were commensurate with their social return. That is, financial wizards might walk off with a great deal of money, but the rest of society is better off because our capital generates so much more productivity than in societies with less well-developed–and less rewarded–financial markets. Part of the rewards that accrue to financial markets are thus for encouraging innovation–through venture capital firms and the like.

But not all innovations enhance welfare, even when they increase profits. For instance, cigarette profits may have increased when the tobacco industry developed products that were more addictive, but those who died as a result, and their families, were hardly better off; nor were the taxpayers who had to pick up the tab for the increased health care costs. Food companies that, today, taking a page out of the same playbook, develop products that lead to compulsive eating–and the resulting obesity epidemic–may be increasing profits, but not societal well-being. Microsoft was ingenious in its strategies to leverage the monopoly power it had from controlling the PC operating system; it increased its profits, but, in killing rivals like Netscape, it had a chilling effect on innovation.

The task of unraveling all that went wrong in our financial system is a difficult one, but in essence the financial system’s latest innovation was to devise fee structures that were often far from transparent and that allowed it to generate enormous profits–private rewards that were not commensurate with social benefits. The imperfections of information (resulting from the non-transparency) led to imperfections in competition, helping to explain why the usual maxim that competition drives profits to zero seemed not to hold. One should have suspected that something was wrong when bank after bank made so much money year after year. One should have suspected that something was wrong with the economic system when millions of Americans owed billions to credit card companies and banks in “late fees,” “penalties,” and a variety of other charges, transforming a high annual interest rate of 20 percent into a truly usurious effective interest rate of 100 percent or more for those who fell behind in their payments.

Perhaps the worst problems–like those in the subprime mortgage market–occurred when non-transparent fee structures interacted with incentives for excessive risk-taking in which financial managers got to keep high returns made one year, even if those returns were more than offset by losses the next. Behind the subprime crisis were mortgages designed to encourage repeated refinancing of homes–a pyramid scheme that generated billions of dollars in fees for the mortgage company as long as home prices continued to soar. It was inevitable that the bubble would break. But, by then, the profits that had been pocketed would make these financial wizards secure for life–or, at least, that was their hope.

To put it another way, had those in the financial sector allocated capital and risk in a way that fueled the economy, they would have had handsome profits. But they wanted more, and so established incentive structures that encouraged gambling. If they gambled and won, they could walk away with a share of the profits. If they gambled and lost, the investors would bear the consequences. It was almost as if the entire financial system was converted into a giant casino in which the system was rigged to guarantee those running the games huge returns, at the expense of the players. But in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, the games are near zero-sum: The gains of the casino owners approximately equal the losses of the players. The financial-system-as-casino, on the other hand, is a negative-sum game. Those on Wall Street may have walked off with billions, but those billions are dwarfed by the costs to be paid by the rest of us. Some have lost their homes and life savings–to say nothing of their dreams for their own futures and those of their children. Others are innocent bystanders who resisted the false promises of the mortgage brokers and the credit card companies, but now find themselves out of jobs as the economy weakens. And the poor are hurt as state revenues plummet, forcing cutbacks in public services.

The current woes in America’s financial system are not an isolated accident–a rare, once-in-a-century event. Indeed, there have been more than one hundred financial crises worldwide in the last 30 years or so. Here in the United States alone, we have had the S&L crisis in 1989, the dot-com/WorldCom/Enron problems of the early years of this decade, and now the subprime-morphing-into-the-beyond-subprime collapse. In addition to these national problems, there were regional troubles–real-estate crises fed by excessive lending in Texas and the Southwest in the mid-’80s, and in California and New England in the early ’90s. In each of these instances, financial markets failed to do what they were supposed to do in allocating capital and managing risk. In the late ’90s, for instance, so much capital was allocated to fiber optics that, by the time of the crash, it was estimated that 97 percent of fiber optics had seen no light.

In short, the problem with the U.S. economy is not that we have allocated too many resources to the “soft” areas and too few to the “hard.” It is not necessarily that we have allocated too many resources to the financial sector and rewarded it too generously–though a strong argument could be put forward to that effect. It is that too little effort was devoted to managing real risks that are important–enabling ordinary Americans to stay in their homes in the face of economic vicissitudes–and that too much effort went into creating financial products that enhanced risk. Too much energy has been spent trying to make an easy buck; too much effort has been devoted to increasing profits and not enough to increasing real wealth, whether that wealth comes from manufacturing or new ideas. We have learned a painful lesson, both in the 1930s and today: The invisible hand often seems invisible because it’s not there. At best, it’s more than a little palsied. At worst, the pursuit of self-interest–corporate greed–can lead to the kind of predicament confronting the country today.

[Joseph Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University, winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, and co-author of The Three Trillion Dollar War.]

© The New Republic 2008

Source / The New Republic / Post date September 10, 2008

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sarah Palin : Soldiers in Iraq on ‘Task From God’

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Thorne Dreyer

I find this very, very disturbing.

Alyssa Burgin / The Rag Blog

Sarah Palin, her church and her messianic world view
By Nico Pitney and Sam Stein / September 2, 2008

Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.

Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain’s running mate.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin’s foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska’s governor asked the audience to pray for another matter — a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.

Palin’s address, much of which was spent reflecting on the work of the church in which she grew up and was baptized, underscores the notion that her world view is deeply impacted by religion. In turn, her remarks raise important questions: mainly, what is Palin’s faith and how exactly has it influenced her policies?

A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin’s longtime spiritual home.

The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war “contending for your faith;” and said that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode.”

It is impossible to determine how much Wasilla Assembly of God has shaped Palin’s thinking. She was baptized there at the age of 12 and attended the church for most of her adult life. When Palin was inaugurated as governor, the founding pastor of the church delivered the invocation. In 2002, Palin moved her family to a nondenominational church, but she continues to worship at a related Assembly of God church in Juneau.

Moreover, she “has maintained a friendship with Wasilla Assembly of God and has attended various conferences and special meetings here,” Kalnins’ office said in a statement. “As for her personal beliefs,” the statement added, “Governor Palin is well able to speak for herself on those issues.”

Clearly, however, Palin views the church as the source of an important, if sometimes politically explosive, message. “Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place,” she told the congregation in June. “What comes from this church I think has great destiny.”

And if the political storm over Barack Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright is any indication, Palin may face some political fallout over the more controversial teachings of Wasilla Assembly of God.

If the church had a political alignment, it would almost surely be conservative. In his sermons, Kalnins did not hide his affections for certain national politicians.

During the 2004 election season, he praised President Bush’s performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. “I’m not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I’m sorry.” Kalnins added: “If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.”

Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. “I hate criticisms towards the President,” he said, “because it’s like criticisms towards the pastor — it’s almost like, it’s not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That’s what it’ll get you.”

Much of his support for the current administration has come in the realm of foreign affairs. Kalnins has preached that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a “world war” over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.

What you see in a terrorist — that’s called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what’s going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. … We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. … Jesus called us to die. You’re worried about getting hurt? He’s called us to die. Listen, you know we can’t even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. … I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say “war mode.”

Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he’s like the good shepherd, he’s loving all the time and he’s kind all the time. Oh yes he is — but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war.
As for his former congregant and current vice presidential candidate, Kalnins has asserted that Palin’s election as governor was the result of a “prophetic call” by another pastor at the church who prayed for her victory. “[He made] a prophetic declaration and then unfolds the kingdom of God, you know.”

Even Palin expressed surprise at that pastor’s advocacy for her candidacy. “He was praying over me,” she said in June. “He’s praying, ‘Lord make a way, Lord make a way…’ And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m gonna do, he doesn’t know what my plans are, and he’s praying not, ‘Oh Lord, if it be your will may she become governor,’ or whatever. No, he just prayed for it. He said, ‘Lord, make a way, and let her do this next step.’ And that’s exactly what happened. So, again, very very powerful coming from this church.”

In his sermons, Pastor Kalnins has also expressed beliefs that, while not directly political, lie outside of mainstream Christian thought.

He preaches repeatedly about the “end times” or “last days,” an apocalyptic prophesy held by a small but vocal group of Christian leaders. During his appearance with Palin in June, he declared, “I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them.”

He also claims to have received direct “words of knowledge” from God, providing him information about past events in other people’s lives. During one sermon, he described being paired with a complete stranger during a golf outing. “I said, I’m a minister from Alaska and I want you to know that your wife left you — you know that your wife left you and that the Lord is gonna defend you in a very short time, and it wasn’t your fault. And the man drops his clubs, he literally was about to tee off and he dropped his clubs, and he says, ‘Who the blank are you?’ And I says, ‘well, I’m a minister.’ He says, ‘how do you know about my life? What do you know?’ And I started giving him more of the word of knowledge to his life and he was freaked out.”

Kalnins has, of course, preached on a bevy of topics ranging from humility to “overcoming bitterness.” But the more controversial remarks reported above were not out of the norm, appearing in numerous sermons spanning the four years of available recordings.

As for Palin, her views on these topics is more opaque. In the wake of the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, a debate has raged about whether political figures should be held responsible for the comments of their religious guiders. Clearly, however, Kalnins, like many national conservative religious leaders, sees Alaska’s governor as one of his own. “Gov. Sarah Palin is the real deal,” he told his church this past summer. “You know, some people put on a show…but she’s the real deal.”

Source / The Huffington Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Is John McCain Really Just Sarah Palin’s Bitch?

Posted on September 3, 2008 by RagBlog

From the creative mind of YouTuber LisaNova.

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens | The Rag Blog | Posted September 2, 2008

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Jim Hightower : The Price of Autocratic Arrogance

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Thorne Dreyer

A mass arrest under way at an antiwar protest in Manhattan on April 7, 2003. Convictions: zero. Cost: $2 million. Photo by Dawn Reel / NYT.

Running a police state is expensive
By Jim Hightower / September 2, 2008

To your list of reasons not to support a police state in America, add this one: It’s expensive.

I’m not talking about the obvious costs of deploying police agents in high-tech riot gear, the tab for prison cells, and whatnot. Rather, I’m talking about paying for lawyers, court costs, and the inevitable damage awards to the people whose rights get trampled. It happens again and again in our country that politicians get spooked when We The People dare to protest their policies, so they resort to the brute force of a police crackdown – essentially using an ax to peel a grape. What they forget in their rush to crush is that America – thank goodness – has a Bill of Rights.

The latest to learn this are New York City officials who unleashed the police state on war protesters in April 2003, right after George W invaded Iraq. Mayor Mike Bloomberg sent the helmeted and booted NYPD to bust a gaggle of peaceful protesters in Midtown Manhattan. They encircled, arrested, and jailed 52 of these citizens, charging them with the heinous crime of “blocking pedestrians.”

But, wait: there were videos of the protest! And – guess what? – no pedestrians had been blocked, and the Republic was not at all endangered by this exercise of First Amendment rights. Yet, city prosecutors pushed hard, spending more than a million dollars of taxpayer funds to try to imprison innocent Americans. Their case was so weak, however, that only two protesters were even brought to trial, and both were found innocent. The other 50 had their charges dropped, and now – five years later – the city has had to pay more than two million dollars to settle the case.

Politicians like Bloomberg are wiping their feet on our Constitution by jailing legitimate protestors – then taxing you and me to cover up their mistakes.

See “52 Arrests, a $2 Million Payout, and Many Questions,” by Jim Dwyer / New York Times / August 20, 2008

Source / Jim Hightower

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment