tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191943782112120600.post918935452928104688..comments2023-09-04T01:47:53.245-07:00Comments on Samsara Samizdat: Sarah Palin and the Department of LawBill Abendrothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16813955112374596460noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191943782112120600.post-55506486399624275452009-07-09T15:21:17.426-07:002009-07-09T15:21:17.426-07:00(Part 2)
Finally, as I mentioned in my note Palin...(Part 2)<br /><br />Finally, as I mentioned in my note Palin's Enemies List http://samsamdat.blogspot.com/2009/07/palins-enemies-list.html , I am persuaded by Mr. Paul Krugman's arguments that more (as opposed to "less") stimulus is needed, and that means more public works projects. Does that mean I'd get behind The Bridge to Nowhere, even though it was a pet project of Senator Ted Stevens? Much as I hate the guy (see http://samsamdat.blogspot.com/2008/10/no-wait-you-dont-understand-i-really-am.html ), I'd have to say yes. After all, Alaska STILL got the $400 million originally targeted for the bridge--they just didn't have to build the bridge.<br /><br />Just my personal opinion, but stimulus is stimulus. Government spending builds the economy (if you care, I'll explain how), and a bridge is something that the people in Ketchikan and Gravina Island can actually use. Are there better uses for federal tax dollars than that particular bridge? Sure--but "missile defense" (or more weapons "systems") is NOT one of them. Heck, if Ted Stevens wanted to build a covered people mover, ferrying people between Gravina Island and Ketchikan while sitting in Lay-Z-Boy recliners, watching first run movies on personal large screen televisions--if the money came out of the Pentagon weapons budget, I'd consider that money well spent.<br /><br />But we digress.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to clarify an incorrect impression I created.Bill Abendrothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16813955112374596460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191943782112120600.post-31599299228684172352009-07-09T15:20:50.974-07:002009-07-09T15:20:50.974-07:00Samsara Samizdat responds:
Anonymous #2--
Your p...Samsara Samizdat responds:<br /><br />Anonymous #2--<br /><br />Your point that even if everything I am suggesting about Governor Palin is true (up to and including that the contractors who built the Wasilla Sports Complex gave her a free $535,000 home), aren't there really bigger fish to fry--is a good one. After all, given the amount of money poured into the banking system by both the Bush and Obama administrations that now cannot be accounted for--even half a million dollars is like worrying about paper clips.<br /><br />Regarding your specific concern about "pork being added" to the so-called "stimulus" packages, here is my response.<br /><br />First, don't let me shock you--but I lack the ability, knowledge, and inclination to wade through tens of thousands of pages of federal legislation, and recognize the difference between "pork" and "matters of vital national importance." For example, if I don't know what "Arctic Cat" is, I certainly am not going to recognize that a $400 million bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island was a bridge to nowhere. <br /><br />Even if I did have that talent, I don't have the ear of anyone who needs to know that information. As it is, I try to deal in specifics as opposed to simple name calling (reasonable minds may differ), but I'm pretty sure that I am still the only one who reads the entire note (spicing the notes up with pictures of Sophia Loren and Jayne Mansfield can only go so far). Maintaining interest in notes about the traffic patterns and efficacy of public works projects would require access to photos and video of a level that simply do not exist. For example, nothing short of the "feelies" described in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World could have kept me focused enough to read the entire USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (and probably not even then).<br /><br />Second, as a bleeding heart left liberal democratic socialist freakizoid well out of mainstream America, I am soft on pork barrel spending (hey--I can't be soft on communism any more, and this seems to be the next best thing). After all, what is "pork"? For example, at the base of Oregon's Mount Hood, there is a beautiful building named Timberline Lodge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timberline_Lodge built in the 1930s by the Works Progress Administration. I have been there many times--and I don't even ski. While I love Timberline Lodge, for anyone living outside the Pacific Northwest, there is an argument that Timberline was a "pork barrel" project.<br /><br />In mid-2008, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was briefly the most hated man in Oregon, because he single handedly blocked a heart-stoppingly complicated plan, involving a land swap that would have increased the size of the Mt. Hood National Forest. I was so angry, I wrote letters to whatever media outlets I could find in Oklahoma about how Senator Coburn was penny-wise and pound foolish. However, I was unable to convince the few people who cared to respond that 1) there IS a difference between various pieces of land in Oregon (ie everything does not look the same here) and 2) I had no personal financial interest in the land swap--other than I snowshoed and backpacked in the Mt. Hood National Forest. From the perspective of Norman OK, adding land to a National Forest in Oregon is a pork barrel project.Bill Abendrothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16813955112374596460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191943782112120600.post-85780483097923479412009-07-09T14:09:59.622-07:002009-07-09T14:09:59.622-07:00Samsara Samizdat responds:
Anonymous #1 re Arctic...Samsara Samizdat responds:<br /><br />Anonymous #1 re Arctic Cat--<br /><br />Your analysis of why Governor Palin's Motion to Automatically Throw Out the Arctic Cat complaint would have been denied (I granted the motion) is probably correct.<br /><br />While I was making fun of Governor Palin's "Department of Law," I treated the "motions to automatically throw out" as motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or motion for judgment on the pleadings. <br /><br />For the Arctic Cat complaint, there were three additional points that helped shape my decision, that I did not discuss (I mean--look how long this note is. Someone on Facebook already branded it "tedious at best").<br /><br />First, I have no idea what Arctic Cat is. I assumed that what whatever it was, it was also a line of clothing, much like Mountain Hardwear or Arc'teryx. Second, I live in Oregon. I can't speak for the rest of the planet, but here the Nike "swoosh" is like god--only more omnipresent and more omnipotent. Nike honcho Mr. Phil Knight passes out money everywhere to everyone, so if Oregon's Governor was wearing a piece of Nike clothing, and even brought attention to it, the argument would be the Governor was promoting an "Oregon Company" (uh huh). Finally, even though no one will believe me (and you probably shouldn't) I thought I was being a little hard on Governor Palin, so on that point I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Again, I was assuming that Governor Palin was not trading on her official capacity to be a walking billboard (NASCAR-style) for a company that did not manufacture clothing. If I am wrong (and it looks like I am), the Department of Law will either allow the motion for reconsideration (if Governor Palin can make up the Department of Law, I get to make up the rules of procedure), and reverse its ruling. In the alternative, all automatic throw outs were without prejudice, so the complaint could be re-filed, this time with additional supporting affidavits and photos.<br /><br />I do want to mention though, that I REALLY wanted to say regarding the Arctic Cat complaint and the Seafood Marketing ad "one in, one out"--just like Humphrey Bogart said in Casablanca.......<br /><br />Thank you for not only reading, but also taking the time to correct me.Bill Abendrothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16813955112374596460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191943782112120600.post-86806067892054562392009-07-08T09:43:43.958-07:002009-07-08T09:43:43.958-07:00You know - I think this is important stuff, if she...You know - I think this is important stuff, if she didn't follow the law or rules she should be called on it - but, isn't there a bigger picture here that we should be focused on?<br /><br />I think most of these are designed to get to her personally, not specifcially because she violated the rule or law - most politicians do so - either knowinging or quite innocently (not saying hers were innocent).<br /><br />I think the bigger picture is the frivously spending by the government - you know - Washington? All the pork that has been added in those bills that aren't being read. Surely to God, if we are going to have a hissy fit about ETHICS - shouldn't we look and examin where the biggest percentage of the money is being squandered?<br /><br />Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191943782112120600.post-4164153613301838582009-07-08T00:24:38.253-07:002009-07-08T00:24:38.253-07:00The Arctic Cat thing wouldn't be thrown out, I...The Arctic Cat thing wouldn't be thrown out, I don't believe.<br /><br />The problem is not so much that she wore an article of clothing with a logo.<br /><br />It's that she wore an article of clothing (actually it appeared to be a whole matching suit of clothing) with a logo of the company that SPONSORED her husband's snow machine team.<br /><br />The company has apparently sponsored Mr. Palin's team for a number of years and Gov. Palin has reported that amount on her required disclosure forms previously.<br /><br />This year, mysteriously, she is not only refusing to do so, but has asked for special permission NOT to disclose those amounts because it's a "secret" under the contract signed by them.<br /><br />Aside from the, in my opinion, likely ethical violation of being a walking billboard for the company that is sponsoring your husband (and giving your family lots of free goodies as explained in the Sports Illustrated (?) article) there is the whole APPEARANCE of impropriety thing that elected officials need to be aware of and avoid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com