VIEWPOINT: A Mighty Wind blows through UPDATE #45 - CBC APOLOGY

[lizbud]

BTW, it's a great article......not one iota of substance, personal attacks...a fine example of modern journalism.

Yeah, kinda reminds me of some posts right here in the DH.( No substance,
personal attacks) et al. You didn't say a word then so why complain now?


How about a few opinions from Palin's home state...The Anchorage Daily
News for example.


Abdication by Palin
When did the McCain campaign take over the governor's office?

Published: September 20th, 2008 12:53 AM
Last Modified: September 20th, 2008 02:47 AM

Gov. Sarah Palin has surrendered important gubernatorial duties to the Republican presidential campaign. McCain staff are handling public and press questions about actions she has taken as governor. The governor who said, "Hold me accountable," is hiding behind the hired guns of the McCain campaign to avoid accountability.

Is it too much to ask that Alaska's governor speak for herself, directly to Alaskans, about her actions as Alaska's governor?

A press conference Thursday showed how skewed Alaska's relationship with its own governor has become.

McCain-Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan announced that Todd Palin will not comply with a subpoena to testify about his role in Troopergate, the Legislature's investigation into whether Palin abused her power in forcing out former public safety commissioner Walt Monegan.

O'Callaghan also announced that Alaska's governor is "unlikely" to cooperate with the investigation by the Alaska Legislature about questionable conduct by Alaska's chief executive.

Monday, he and campaign sidekick Meg Stapleton stood before Alaskans and defended the official personnel decision by Alaska's governor to fire Alaska's public safety commissioner. ABC News reported that Gov. Palin's official press secretary, Bill McAllister, paid by the state of Alaska, didn't even know the McCain staffers were meeting the press to defend his boss.


Is the McCain campaign telling Alaskans that Alaska's governor can't handle her own defense in front of her own Alaska constituents?

Way back when, before John McCain chose Palin as his vice presidential running mate, Palin promised to cooperate with the investigation.

Now she won't utter a peep about it to Alaskans. Nor will her husband, Todd, who definitely needs to explain his role in Troopergate.

Instead, Alaskans have to sit back and listen to John McCain's campaign operatives handling inquiries about what Alaska's governor did while governing Alaska. Residents of any state would be offended to see their governor cede such a fundamental, day-to-day governmental responsibility to a partisan politician from another state. It's especially offensive to Alaskans.

O'Callaghan said Todd Palin objects to the subpoena because the Legislature's investigation "has been subjected to complete partisanship." That's the kind of dizzying spin that Washington has perfected. It is the McCain-Palin campaign that has worked overtime to politicize the entire matter in a transparent attempt to justify the stonewalling.

Futile as the request may be, we encourage Gov. Palin to stand up to McCain's handlers and be personally accountable for her administration's response to Troopergate. She is the governor of Alaska, not John McCain or Ed O'Callaghan.

BOTTOM LINE: Official state business -- like Troopergate -- should be handled by the governor of the state, not by McCain presidential campaign operatives.

[Lady's Human]

Liz, there's a large difference between our sparring in the dog house and someone being paid by CBC to be a columnist.

We're not getting paid for our discussions in the dog house, while she is being paid by the CBC for her efforts, which amount to a poorly written diatribe against the rural US.

[Catty1]

If you go to post #15, the link Richard has there goes to a page with a "contact Heather" link near the bottom of the article.

When I read this, I thought she was REALLY left-wing...but that viciousness is quite uncalled for.

I went back through her columns to see if she had responded to any of the criticism. I found one where she is talking about how McCain cannot use a computer. Less harsh, but still kind of pointless.

Have at 'er!

ETA: She has a husband named Charles. AND, the version of the same article that went to the Guardian in the UK is really interesting in its differences...kind of an insult to her fellow Canadians as well.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I found one where she is talking about how McCain cannot use a computer. Less harsh, but still kind of pointless.

Pointless but true none the less.

Question: should the next president be not only to answer the phone at 3 am, but text message and email as well?

[Lady's Human]

I couldn't care less whether the next president can drive a car, use a cell phone, text message....etc.

We're not picking the coolest kid on the block.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I couldn't care less whether the next president can drive a car, use a cell phone, text message....etc.

We're not picking the coolest kid on the block.

We aren't? Then why all the Sara Palin fuss?

[lizbud]

We aren't? Then why all the Sara Palin fuss?

Good one momo.

[lizbud]

Liz, there's a large difference between our sparring in the dog house and someone being paid by CBC to be a columnist.

We're not getting paid for our discussions in the dog house, while she is being paid by the CBC for her efforts, which amount to a poorly written diatribe against the rural US.

It's either correct to use personal attacks when debating a point, or it isn't.

[Lady's Human]

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

[Lady's Human]

As to all the Gov. Palin fuss, she's the VP candidate for a major political party.

I don't care about her clothes, glasses, hair, cell phone, or any of the rest of the crap the media has been covering.

[RICHARD]

Palin abdicates her seat with the state?

What about senators who step into office then go off running for a presidency?

-------------

Poor HUsband, can you imagine parking your tush at the dinner table when that shrew has a bad day? Either he was drunk, has low self-esteem or was knocked out when he proposed to her-betcha she kept her maiden name too!


If I was a woman I'd stop with the "talking Va-jay-jays" thoughts.

I know for a fact they don't talk.

But you can hear the ocean if you close your eyes and are reallllllllly quiet.

-----------

DID ANYONE SEE THE INTERVIEW WITH HER EX BIL?


THIS FN AH admitted to tasering his 10 year old because he asked for it. Literally! THere were also charges about alcohol abuse while on duty.

THe moron shows up with a union rep to an interview-no knock on the rep-but don't you show up with a lawyer?

HE was candid and did admit to tasering the kid and the alcohol stories.

Really, there is nothing wrong with tasering a kid or getting involved with alcohol whil you are on duty as a cop.

It's all part of life in Hillbilly Town, Alaska.

[Puckstop31]

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!



Somehow I knew Liz would post that article when I saw it on Drudge. Although I am a bit shocked she could not see this retort coming.

[lizbud]

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

You have mentioned "warrantless searches" several times but have yet
to show me where this exists in the language of that bill.

[Lady's Human]

Read the bill.....

It mentions in several areas monitoring the internet activities of suspects, but nowhere does it define how one becomes a suspect.

It redefines parts of US Law to prohibit the transmission of "images of child abuse" but nowhere does it define what abuse is considered under the law.

Never would I give the federal government that authority.

However, given the nature of packet switching communications networks and the overly broad nature of the application of the interstate commerce clause, the law is really a moot point. All internet traffic by nature is interstate, and therefore regulated under federal, and not state, laws.

[RICHARD]

I can't stress the idea of 'when the zapato fits' enough.

If someone molests a child relative then posts photos of the crime on the 'net'.

If someone hacks your personal email account.

If someone steals your credit card account numbers or money.

If someone hacks your phone account and puts crazy charges on your number.

If someone hacks the computer at work and you have to lose money, work overtime or ????.

What is the first thing you do? You call on god and all the saints to fix the problem. Should that problem be traced to a person, you want that person to be held accountable for their actions/mischief.

So.........
You don't want the government to have any way to look at the internet or the transactions there of.

Bills, rules and laws are always written in a general sense to keep from having tons of pages of stupid rules everytime a different case comes up.

Just like the little jerkwad who argued every single point in my Poli-Sci classes.

I'll repeat this until I am blue in the face.

Should we get another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it's coordinated thru cell phones, email or electronic messaging-People will scream about how the government did not do a good enough job monitoring the WWW for clues.

So how do we want it?

Other than the stupid things we use the internet for, why are we so scared about what we send out?

We laugh at Mohammed in Africa trying to scam a few bucks via email, we delete those messages without a thought.

I think I'll laugh when I get the generic letter from a company that says, "Hey your account and personal information may be one of thousands of files that were hacked out of our system! We'll keep our eyes peeled, just in case!"

So what do we want?

Molesters, terrorists, hackers and thugs operating without any fear of being foiled or apprehended?

If anything it makes me a little more aware of what I do on my computer.
Remember that we love the ability to use an ATM, pay our bills online and all the other funky stuff we get off on while we use the internet.

So, should things go badly, take a moment and think about who you will call on to make things right.