Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

New revelations re Palin and dominionists

dogemperor's picture

[Welcome, Digby readers! I'm really not sure this series of posts has stood the test of time. The basic problem is that information on Palin was so polluted by her detractors in 2008 that it's almost impossible to assess accurately, and much of this series is self-referential. --lambert]

Much like the US Postal Service, neither rain nor snow nor 70% of my hometown's power infrastructure being eaten by Ike will stop me from posting the latest on Palin's connections with dominionists.

We've posted before on her initial outing as a dominionist stealth candidate, her links to "Joel's Army" including Alaskan state funds being used for groups promoting apocalyptic theology, and her attempt at a back-door book ban in conjunction with a crusade by one of her home churches.

Today, we find out even more info on the book-ban attempt giving further proof that Palin has *not* dropped her links with Joel's Army--and if that weren't enough, there's some very telling evidence from the horse's mouth.

More info on the attempted book-ban--and its theological connections

Recently, a new article in Salon gives more disturbing info regarding Palin's attempt at an end-run against Wasilla Public Library's book-challenge policy--and more evidence that this was part of an attempt by several dominionist churches, with Wasilla A/G at the front, to purge LGBT-supportive books from both libraries and bookstores.

Since the initial links between Palin and neopente dominionist groups (including two separate Assemblies congregations linked to the "Joel's Army" movement as well as a third "independent" neopente denomination also promoting Joel's Army theology) have come out, there's been quite a lot of spin control--including claims that she left Wasilla A/G because it was "too extreme" (despite apparently having appeared regularly at Assemblies churches, including Wasilla A/G and at the district H/Q even as late as June 2008--four years after she claims to have left; not in a pattern fitting with someone leaving a church because of claims of being "too extreme").

Unfortunately, the Salon article would seem to prove the lie to this--with info indicating Wasilla A/G not only supported her but actually proclaimed her as the chosen candidate of "Joel's Army"--whilst carefully warning their parishoners to keep mum to the press:

WASILLA, Alaska -- The Wasilla Assembly of God, the evangelical church where Sarah Palin came of age, was still charged with excitement on Sunday over Palin's sudden ascendance. Pastor Ed Kalnins warned his congregation not to talk with any journalists who might have been lurking in the pews -- and directly warned this reporter not to interview any of his flock. But Kalnins and other speakers at the service reveled in Palin's rise to global stardom.

It confirmed, they said, that God was making use of Wasilla. "She will take our message to the world!" rejoiced an Assembly of God youth ministry leader, as the church band rocked the high-vaulted wooden building with its electric gospel.

The article gives some very revealing information regarding the hostile environment that Wasilla A/G tried to create:

When it was published in 1995, Bess' book caused an immediate storm in the Mat-Su Valley, an evangelical stronghold dotted with storefront churches. Conservative ministers targeted the book, and the only bookstore in the valley that dared to stock it -- Shalom Christian Books and Gifts – soon dropped it after the owner was barraged with angry phone calls. The Frontiersman, the local newspaper that ran a column by Bess for seven years, fired him and ran a vicious cartoon that suggested even drooling child molesters would be welcomed by Bess' church.

(Of note, the equation of paedophiles and LGBT people tends to be all too common in Assemblies churches--here's an example from my own hometown.)

There's also some info indicating that the attempt to go around the Wasilla Public Library's book-challenge policy was in fact inspired by the ongoing Joel's Army fatwa against "Pastor, I Am Gay" (which even extended to the point of literal pickets against bookstores daring to carry the book):

And after she became mayor of Wasilla, according to Bess, Sarah Palin tried to get rid of his book from the local library. Palin now denies that she wanted to censor library books, but Bess insists that his book was on a "hit list" targeted by Palin. "I'm as certain of that as I am that I'm sitting here. This is a small town, we all know each other. People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do."

And--as it turns out--her reported membership in "Feminists For Life" and statements on being virulently anti-abortion also directly influenced her policies in Wasilla--and in a different way than the infamous "make them pay for their own rape kits" way.

More evidence of theology and policy mixing

The article also notes an attempt to steeplejack community hospital boards, combined with an attempt to effectively ban abortion in the borough--one which led to the state of Alaska stepping in and ruling it unconstitutional:

Soon after the book controversy, Bess found himself again at odds with Palin and her fellow evangelicals. In 1996, evangelical churches mounted a vigorous campaign to take over the local hospital's community board and ban abortion from the valley. When they succeeded, Bess and Dr. Susan Lemagie, a Palmer OB-GYN, fought back, filing suit on behalf of a local woman who had been forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. The case was finally decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that the hospital must provide valley women with the abortion option.

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie's office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer's Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician's practice that day was Sarah Palin.

Another attempt at governmental steeplejacking firmly linked to Palin was what may well have been the very model for her attempted run as a dominionist stealth VP--namely school boards, a target for dominionist steeplejacks-by-stealth since the Christian Coalition's early organisational days in the early 80s.

Even worse, there are indications she has answered the question on whether or not she followed dominionist--and specifically neopentecostal dominionist--theology in governmental decision-making:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

As bad as this is, there is still far worse.

Palin's connections with Gothard--and queenmaking by the heart of the "Joel's Army" movement

Recently, links have been found between Sarah Palin and one of the more distinctly coercive "Joel's Army" groups out there--namely, Bill Gothard's "International Association of Character Cities", one of a veritable hive of frontgroups run by Gothard:

According to articles in today’s Daily Oklahoman and Washington Post, when she was mayor of Wasilla AK, Sarah Palin “spearheaded” efforts to establish the town as as “a community of character” via the International Association of Character Cities (IACC). What these stories don’t mention is that the Oklahoma City-based IACC is a secular front for Chicago millionaire evangelist Bill Gothard.
. . .
1) When she introduced the "Character Cities" program in Wasilla, did then-Mayor Palin inform other council members that it was a front for Bill Gothard?

In 2006, Arizona State Treasurer David Petersen was forced to resign after getting busted for accepting commissions for implementing Gothard’s Character Training programs in the Grand Canyon state.

2) Has Sarah Palin received any income from the IACC or other organizations affiliated with Bill Gothard? Are she and "First Dude" Todd Palin going to release their tax returns as Joe and Jill Biden have done?

As The Beacon and others seek answers to these and other questions, we respectfully urge Governor Palin, good Christian that she is, to seek guidance from the Character Council of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky’s "Character Quality of the Month" for September 2008: TRUTHFULNESS.

The links with Gothard are particularly disturbing. Gothard's nest of fronts are among those directly provable to be running training camps for "God Warriors With Guns" and also have a history of links with "Christian nationalist" secessionists and racists. This is, of course, on top of actively infiltrating police and other public safety agencies to convert those to wings of "Joel's Army", and the promotion of religiously motivated child abuse so extreme that it's been linked to murder-suicides due to those being tortured finally snapping.

And...disturbingly..."Joel's Army" certainly seems to be getting the signal on their own end, as she is explicitly being promoted even more on their ends.

One example comes from Fire In My Bones (yes, "Joel's Army" groups love fire imagery) literally comparing Sarah Palin to the Biblical prophet Deborah. The original post seems to have been pulled, but the article was reportedly published in Charisma Magazine, and what is available is disturbing indeed:

A prominent evangelical figure in the U.S. this week said Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a modern-day incarnation of the Biblical prophet, Deborah - primed to miraculously slay her nation's enemies on the battlefield.

Writing in his influential magazine, Charisma, editor J. Lee Grady likened the 44-year-old Alaskan governor to Deborah, the Old Testament prophet "who rallied God’s people to victory at a time when ancient Israel was being terrorized by foreign invaders."

Evangelicals who don't support Charisma worry that J. Lee Grady has not only embraced Sarah Palin as a prophet, but in 2005 heartily endorsed Todd Bentley, the disgraced B.C-based faith healer.

Yes, you're reading this right; Palin is now being actively promoted within Joel's Army circles as being one of the very generals of their holy war.

And the article notes just how bluntly the point is being made:

As Grady wrote in this week's column, the gender of the Old Testament prophet Deborah "didn’t stop her from amassing an army; she inspired the people in a way no man could. She and her defense minister, Barak, headed to the front lines and watched God do a miracle on the battlefield."
Grady continues: "In her song in Judges 5:7, Deborah declares: 'The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose, a mother in Israel'... Sometimes it takes a true mother to rally the troops."

Even worse, she's being promoted as a walking, talking prophecy-in-the-flesh by those promoting holy war with America by the same author:

Talk about a role model. Palin’s life is a prophecy to America. She doesn’t have to preach against abortion. She and her family, even with their flaws, are the embodiment of the compassionate pro-life values America desperately needs to adopt.

Even worse yet, there's reports that Joel's Army and other dominionists are literally making imprecatory prayers for McCain's death...so Palin can be president.

The explicit promotion of Palin as a latter-day end-times prophet is disturbing indeed--and a dangerous sign, a strong sign that Palin getting close to the Presidency could have the whole world's fate riding on it.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Violet Socks's picture
Submitted by Violet Socks on

I'm amazed that Corrente is publishing this crap. Even the grotesque rape kit smear, which has been pushed by His Hopiness and Changiness, Lord Unity Obama.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

you make Larry Johnson look good.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

This is tough stuff to talk about, because the language and the concepts are so very strange to non-believer's ears. (I'm assuming, you weren't raised AoG or that sort, were you?) Dogemperor does a great job of finding the threads and tying them together, but the language and the pattern of deliberate obfuscation by the Dominionists themselves does make for a story that tends to sound a bit loosey-goosey.

Not quite Larry Johnson loosey-goosey though; that boy is in a league of his own.

I do believe - carefully chosen word there - that Palin is everything we're reading about here; she's just been careful the last few years, especially since she hooked up with Walter Hickel, to mostly keep her mouth shut and started a practice of sowing confusion in the public record and talking in code. Makes pinning down a pattern of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt very difficult. Stay tuned, though; Palin can't stay hidden forever.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm seeing a lot of linky goodness on the dominionists. Anybody want to engage with that? At this point, even the rape kit stuff is irretrievably contaminated by partisans on both sides, all the way down to the conflicts from the small town itself. Seems to me the dominionist angle is the only one worth pursuing via Palin, because these people aren't shy about their intentions, and the record is pretty clear.

If this stuff is true, I don't want Palin anywhere near the Presidency, whether the rape kit thing is manufactured or not. That has no bearing.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That Palin had called for a war with Russia. She was, in fact, responding accurately and rationally to a question about NATO.

No response when called out on that. My truthiness allergy thus flared up and hasn't found a reason to go into remission.

scoff's picture
Submitted by scoff on

From somone who appreciates the danger of ignoring the dominionists' expressly-stated purpose of imposing biblical law in place of our Constitution, your time, effort and insight is much appreciated.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

to the Mighty Corrente Building.

I've been reading your work for years. It's astonishing, and the depth and breadth of the research never fails to impress me.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

I am not a walkaway, but have seen the actions of the Dominionists in my area and the results in the people. For instance, a local book store was pushed to take the Harry Potter books out of the window for fear of reprisals. The had to put them in the back out of sight, and people had to ask for them explicitly, so as not to invite trouble from the local religious groups. A local pool hall was burnt down - I'm sure because of those same people. The counties around me are all dry counties, because of these folks.

When Dobson gave his blessing to Palin so quickly, it cinched it for me. He would NOT have been so fast to support her if she were not Dominionist. Your information just reinforces that notion.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

as a political actor had every reason in the world to jump on board the McCain train at the slighest excuse.

Submitted by lambert on

The Council on National Policy is a bit more worrisome.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

The last part of this article, much like the telegraph link Sarah posted in one of yesterday's posts (I don't much care to look for the link, kick me out, I don't care anymore) seems to be a lot of guilt by people trying to latch onto Palin's star. Just look at some of the sentences used in the latter part of this post:

And…disturbingly…”Joel’s Army” certainly seems to be getting the signal on their own end, as she is explicitly being promoted even more on their ends.

..

One example comes from Fire In My Bones (yes, “Joel’s Army” groups love fire imagery) literally comparing Sarah Palin to the Biblical prophet Deborah.

...

Even worse, she’s being promoted as a walking, talking prophecy-in-the-flesh by those promoting holy war with America by the same author:

...

Even worse yet, there’s reports that Joel’s Army and other dominionists are literally making imprecatory prayers for McCain’s death…so Palin can be president.

Because no one is making similar proclamations about Obama.

Oh well. PB2.0 is a nice concept in theory. But as Homer Simpson would say, "In theory Communism works...in theory." When you start out with a narrative you want to believe, you are going to find whatever information you can to justify your belief. Even Corrente is full of that. If PB2.0 is about finding data to justify our preconceptions, count me out.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Submitted by lambert on

... get that hair out of your ass, wouldja? Thanks.

It's one thing to snark that Obama uses Messianic imagery -- because he does.

It's another thing to talk about Dominionism, is it not?

So far as I can tell, the only thing you've got going for you in the post is "seems to be a lot of guilt by people".

And then PB 2.0 goes down because you think something "seems"? Huh?

UPDATE If you want to do a takedown, then do the work.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Links are good, yes, but they can also be really misleading.

The book-banning crap and the rape-kit 'revelations' -- every day brings NEW PROOF which is just a rehash of the OLD proof, only citing to a new Tier II (I'm being generous) site.

Are the Dominionists scary and bad? Seems so. Let's assume they are. But Dogemperor intertwines their scary badness with an occasional indication that Palin might share their scariest, baddestnesses, which masks the fact that the connections just aren't that strong.

I can only offer up the types of things I find persuasive (others' mileage may vary). This end-of-world indoctrination-sounding thing just isn't it (not talking about the Dominionists there). Esp. not after spending a fair number of hours poking around myself trying to establish what is fear-mongering guilt-by-association versus actual fact on Palin. She's not anti-contraception, she's never forced schools to teach creationism and doesn't even seem to care all that much about it being taught in schools, she didn't ban any damn books, and there's no proof that she, particularly, created, implemented, or endorsed charging for the damn rape kits. Every one of those was thrown out there and half the internet is running around repeating all of them like she set fire to the town library and pried cold hard cash out of rape victims hands herself. It's all assumption by affiliation and assuming what the author's trying to prove.

For cryin' out loud, what's wrong with this paragraph:

And—as it turns out—her reported membership in “Feminists For Life” and statements on being virulently anti-abortion also directly influenced her policies in Wasilla—and in a different way than the infamous “make them pay for their own rape kits” way.

God damn America. I'm just sayin'.

I do appreciate your attempts to get us all some more information about Dominionists. But what I'd really like to hear is information, not apocalyptic spin (from either Dominionists or non).

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

Valhalla:

I have a lot on my plate right now. I don't have time to:

1. Consolidate the Palin smears (true or false) into a massive takedown post. If there's one somewhere, please link to it. If you want to write one, then please so. It would be a valuable resource, because all the argument is scattered through thread after thread.

2. Consolidate the Dominionist stuff into a scorecard/players post. It would be great if dogemperor did that. That stuff is nasty, and when one of 'em goes mainstream, they use dogwhistles, and "guilt by association" is not adequate riposte to that tactic. This story is critical to assessing Palin. The information needs to be out there so it can be assessed. So far as I can tell, we are not in LJ territory here. And so far, I "take what I like and leave the rest," in exchange for information from somebody who's worked on this stuff.

If somebody wants to show truthiness, they should do so. Granted, that takes a level of effort. And?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

What negative is to be proved, here?

Some dogwhistles are, some aren't. And surely which is which is to be established through examination?

What I'm seeing here is a lot of unwillingness to actually engage with what is substantive about the post, the Dominionism stuff.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

"every new takedown is a link to an old takedown"

... facts are damn inconvenient things, when they don't point the way you want.

Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla.
Sarah Palin fired the police chief who was chief when she took office.
After she fired him the new chief instituted a policy of charging rape victims for the rape kits.
Palin didn't stop him from doing this, didn't speak out against it.
The AK state lege and governor passed a law to stop it.

NONE of those facts have been debunked.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

efforts Obama made to stop the practice in Illinois?

It's a lousy practice, I agree, even though the intention is to get victims' health insurance to pay for it, not to soak the victims for it personally.

If Palin knew about it and approved it-- which I gather there's no real evidence of, but what the heck-- shame on her. Shame on Obama. Shame on every official everywhere this is done who doesn't try to change it.

And?

She's a Republican, Sarah, a conservative Republican. Republicans do this kind of stuff. That's why I don't vote for them, never have and never will.

Submitted by lambert on

... the response I remember is that yes, the town billed the victims on the assumption that insurance companies would pay, and the money was a lot for a small town.

Frankly, all this Tier Two shit, some true, some false, some partially true is a complete mess in my mind, and I do try to keep track.

The fact that all parties on all sides have never managed to tie everything together in one place to refer to, and all refer to contradictory facts as true without links... Well, its frustrating.

In fact, the whole thing makes me think its Rashomon, since ultimately the facts come down to facts about small town politics, and I know what that's like.

So then, dogemperor gets caught up in that madness, which is used to take down everything else they wrote. Sweet Jeebus.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

Yes, bad. I agree. Who could possibly disagree?

You appeared, however, to be demanding that those of us who aren't at all convinced by what's been posted here so far somehow provide proof that Palin isn't a dominionist or STFU. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for the misinterpretation.

I've not seen anything here beyond "six degrees of Sarah Palin" connections and assertions of "dogwhistles." There's no way I know of to "establish through examination" what's a dogwhistle and what isn't, and I would have thought that the endless cries of "racist dogwhistle" during the primaries would have made that more than clear.

Submitted by lambert on

Well, I can't answer for what I "appear to be demanding." I am saying that dogemperor is making a case that others have yet to confront or refute directly. farmer, of blessed memory, did a ton of work on these clowns back at the old site. Dogwhistles are their modus operandi. Of course you can make a good case for what's a dogwhistle and what's not. It's like an intelligence operation; you look for what they've done in the past, and see if similar things are happening. It's foolish, even derelict, not to take this into account.

No, grant, for the sake of the argument, that all the other Tier Two crap has been debunked (and see comment above on tying it together). That was done by research and sifting the evidence, yes? (Like no action taken on the librarian). So, surely the same method can be applied here?

Instead, all I'm getting, basically, is "I don't want to read about this" and "the blogger sucks" or "the blog sucks." Big yawn.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

... this isn't about the Dominationists, its about supposed evidence of a vast conspiracy that Sarah Palin is a part of to impose Dominionism on the US.

And its pure, unadulterated bullshit.

If I felt like it, I could make a much better case linking Obama to advocates of violent overthrow of the US government than this crap. Heck, I could do a better job of 'proving' Obama is a muslim than this crap.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

what kind of research and sifting of evidence can be applied to statements that some phrase or other is a dogwhistle to some creepy secret group of nutcases and what's not.

When Bill Clinton was accused of dogwhistling about race when he said Obama was a "roll of the dice," to some of us it was obvious hooey because of his long background in anti-discrimination and just plain who he is. To others, his history and record didn't matter in the least because he was so obviously, to them, dogwhistling. In fact, many went on a mad search to dig up other suspect phrases he'd uttered over the years.

Who proved what? It's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Submitted by lambert on

Read the post. Then read the thread. I think it's evident. Gotta go.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

peter's picture
Submitted by peter on

I got it on good authority that next Monday there's going to be some type of 'reception' for Iran's leader with Hillary Clinton as the keynote speaker. Sarah Palin will also be there and there might be a handshake or something.

peter

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

A rally/protest isn't a "reception," as such.

Try this, for example, to flesh out your pitch.

Submitted by lambert on

Quelle surprise. Hillary cancelled the appearance.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I actually have a fair amount of stuff on the rape-kit thing, but it's unlikely I would be able to pull it together until at least the weekend, with links. Same with pulling together all the book links. Although, I've backed up my book ban comments with plenty o' links.

If you're sensing resistance to the Dominion stuff, here's some reasons why (imo):

1. Arguments made by partisans should be treated with skepticism, always. After racism fairy tales and assassination wish-fulfilment (plus a 1000 lesser lies) put forth by a particular group of partisans this year, most people's skepticism is on super overdrive. It should probably always be on overdrive.

2. In PB1.0, the burden of proof (as here, with Sarah) seems to be on the skeptic, not the desperate-to-believer. It should be the other way around. The person asserting monstrousness should have to build up from 0, not start at 100% conclusively true and dare everyone else to disprove what hasn't been proven.

3. Varying standards of what constitutes proof, with partisan based acceptance or rejection of the same types of 'evidence'. Dogemperor's entire piece assumes credibility of every person quoted -- but who are these people? Where's the commonsense evaluation of, say, a person's motivations for making a particular statement? A person shouldn't become credible just because they agree with you.

4. Lack of balance in summarizing and characterizing material facts. No, I don't mean the fakey kind of balance the MSM practices, where they think quoting dueling press releases from opposing sides = objectivity. But absolute refusal to consider plausible alternative interpretations of facts is an absence of balance. Or, in other words, treating interpretation as fact; refusing to admit interpretation.

On that last one, most bizarre to me, an inability to understand that offering a plausible alternative interpretation of fact is not a rejection or disproof of an initial plausible interpretation of fact.

5. Selective citation of facts. Eg, as gyrfalcon points out, charging victims for rape-kits is (was) apparently fairly widespread. How many PB1.0 sites mentioned that? Or even thought to check? Or posted on it once it had been pointed out?

For me, the massive effort to create facts or truth out of repetition makes me doubt negative statements the more I hear them. Now, people can repeat things that are true just as many times, of course, but you'll have to excuse my somewhat Pavlovian reaction to this past year where the more repeated, the more likely to be unfact or nontruth.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

... and none applied to the particular post at hand.

Which is why you all are encountering resistance from me.

Take, in particular, your point #1 on partisanship. If dogemperor had suddenly started posting on Dominionism when Palin got nominated, I'd be suspicious. But it's not so, and on this issue he's been just as hard on Hillary (whose prayer circle was rather odd). Why do you assume that dogemperor is a partisan, then?

What I see is the presence of a subject matter expert on a hard subject to write about, and an absolute unwillingness from many to look at what is actually being written. To me, there is not a case that Palin is a Manchurian Dominionist, but there is a case for further research -- because if it's true, the downside is really, really bad.

Dogemperor's doing that work. So far as I can tell, you either want them to stop, or STFU about it.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Some things can't be proven either way, but what is known and how it is known, versus what is assumed or interpreted, can be laid out, so people can judge for themselves.

Been years since I saw Rashomon, but iirc, something happened, there were just 4 (or 6?) differing interpretations. My objection to the book banning, rape-kit, and Dominionist stuff, inter alia, is picking one of the 4 and insisting it's true.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

Now if only factcheck.org doesn't turn out out to be fucked too...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

they've made some mistakes [and/or bad interpretations] before.

palin is correct on the 20% figure, if she was talking about domestic crude oil and natural gas production [or maybe it was all fossil fuels, including coal; i forget]. i spent some time looking for actual [presumably] unedited videos of her saying: Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" but all i've found so far is transcripts.

so, i can't tell if she slipped up and left off the modifier petroleum [or fossil fuel], or if she deliberately left it off, in order to make it look more impressive, or if she's being misquoted and the reporters, bloggers, and fact checkers aren't doing their jobs more carefully.

if she's being misquoted, either deliberately or inadvertently, liberals are -- yet again -- going to come off looking stooooopid if they press this issue.

apologies, no linky goodness on this, but it's out there [including correctly interpreting the facts that factcheck.org used. me, i'm working on collecting some dominionism for dummies linkiness tonight.

Submitted by lambert on

It does seem, at least, that the factcheck post is a starting point.

And "dominionism for dummies" (haw!) would be very helpful.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

but they seem to have hired interns to do a lot of their hunting down and interpretations of facts.

and i'm not going to get the dominionism for dummies post finished tonight. possibly tomorrow night though. and i'm not going to title it that either.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Dogemperor is female, she mentioned it once a long time ago. Certainly it doesn't matter in any other way, but the conventions of English grammar demand that we know. You'll need to ask her about the blogging name gender choice.

Submitted by hipparchia on

Dogemperor is female

thus my 'hi, lambert, neener neener' in my reply to you yesterday.

grapefruit and flamethrowers, now there's a combination i'm tempted to try [your recipe really does sound good though]

Submitted by lambert on

... as opposed to gendered pronounds. I grant I'm not consistent, and should do this more.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

i use "they" too or try to rearrange the sentence, which means that i sometimes end up with some really tortured grammar.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

As I pointed out, that's all he latter paragraphs of this post entail. So-and-so praises Palin or compares her to someone in the Bible. Therefore Palin is linked to so-and-so and shares all of their views. That's bogus. That may be all I have going for me, but in non horserace discussions that type of argument wouldn't be able to hold water.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Submitted by lambert on

... as those who will not look.

You need to put the words in the context of her church and the words and the church in the context of her political connections. That's what dogemperor i trying to do. That is what you resolutely refuse to do -- while vociferously expressing your concerns re: method. Feh.

Clue stick: Christianists communicate their political views with Bible quote all the time. They believe that shit -- and they believe plenty of whacked out interpretations, too.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

is a dandy in a number of ways, not the least of which in support of showing how she's moved around trying to hide her true affiliations. She's attended half a dozen churches in the last few years, all of which are related but only a few are overt Dominionist; the rest are low-key fronts, cash-gathering and recruitment sources for the hard-core ones like Wasilla AoG. She has deliberately tried to drag her scent trail back and forth, like a fox will do to throw off the hounds, but she couldn't ever bring herself to break completely from her comfort zone.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

She a constitutionalist. Not a dominionist.

Cherry picking then twisting her words to fit dogemperors paranoid theories when other words, and her ACTIONS, tell us something completely different is complete BS.

It didn't pass muster when it was done to Hillary Clinton by those with CDS, and it shouldn't pass muster here when its done to Sarah Palin by those with PDS.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Beliefs deeply held so often become intentions and then acts. Just because that tiger hasn't eaten you yet isn't proof positive that he never will. Ask Siegfried and Roy.

She's not a Constitutionalist. Her sympathies lie with those who want to seize the federal lands within Alaska's boundaries and then secede from the Union, as well as with those who believe that the End Is Near and Alaska will be the final refuge of the righteous while Armageddon rages over the rest of the planet. Those two groups go together like a hand and glove, and Palin is eyeball deep with both of them. Based on her pronouncements, her many, many long-standing associations and her actions, she is in my considered opinion a Dominionist and a secessionist.

This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton; you know I've defended her too. A lot of what has been said about her, certainly all of the right-wing crap, is indeed false. Hell, a lot of false things have been said about me too, and I'll bet a few about you as well. So what? Talking here about Sarah Palin, who is I am certain very much a scary person with scary beliefs who will, given the opportunity, do terrible things. It would be wrong to not discuss these issues.

But if evidence of an act, an act done while an elected official that was driven purely by her own twisted religious beliefs, an act so heinous, so inhumane that any reasonable person - a person like you - would find it to be contemptible, can be proven, will you then step back and accept that maybe there is something seriously wrong with her? If so, I'll go to the trouble to put the evidence together step-by-step to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is not a feminist icon but exactly the opposite, an oppressor of women, an enemy of all that is decent, a repulsive disgusting creature that should be run out of town on a rail.

If, on the other hand, what is happening for you is still somehow about revenge for Hillary and no amount of evidence will convince you to consider Palin's dangerousness, then please just say so and I won't waste my time.

No anger, though, OK? We just disagree on this, and we can sort it out with facts and evidence and reason - or not. No need to get upset with or demean each other; nobody wins if that happens. If I'm wrong, you and others here can take me apart and set me straight, and you know you won't be alone - there'll be a line for that opportunity. What do you say? Shall we have that discussion?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

when has Palin ever taken steps as a government official to enact any of your paranoid fantasies?

Indeed, since she entered politics, when has she ever suggested succession?

Everything she has done and said as a public official tells us that she is not some kind of crazed Dominationist, or Successionist, or whatever.

To me, this is worse than those who try to tie Obama to the policies and ideas of Wright and Ayres. At least there is strong evidence with Obama --- with Palin, its based solely on rumor, conjecture, and extrapolation.

Here's a clue about "end times" Christians -- they don't think they'll be around for the tribulations that would make Alaska the final refuge against the forces of the Anti-Christ, because they'll all be raptured into heaven before the Anti-Christ appears. And if/when all the "true Christians" do suddenly disappear, I'll be with the Alaska successionists, hoping to stay alive against the forces of the evil locusts and the hoards of satanic horsemen who will dominate the earth for seven years until Jesus returns.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

You know me, I am ever sincere. You've asked for demonstration of an act of governance by Palin that is driven by her fanaticism. I've offered to spend the time to work up that case. I do believe, like an honorable prosecutor, that she's guilty and that I can prove it - at least to the degree of proof that is accepted in a courtroom, in the range of somewhere between preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could take your title line, "Actions, Actions, Actions" and the question that follows - when has Palin ever taken steps as a government official to enact any of your* paranoid fantasies? as an acceptance but I'd like to hear something more specific, along the lines of "yes that would be interesting or great or highly unlikely but surely amusing or go ahead knock yourself out or just about anything that can be read as an agreement wherein I put out a fair amount of work and you read and digest and critique and we continue that exchange until one or the other of us changes our minds or we drop from exhaustion.

Not trying to lay a trap here, or anything underhanded; I'm being completely honest and open and sincere. I think it might be useful to have an evidentiary exchange, the sort of thing that gets talked about in the PB2.0 forums, and do it in a civilized, dare I say it gentlemanly fashion, with mutual respect and a modicum of consideration for the high probability that as this contremps passes we will once again find ourselves on the same side of serious issues and be grateful for each other's support.

Shall we dance?

[*Note: A POV thing, surely, but I do believe that all the "paranoid fantasies" being discussed here belong to Palin, not to me. A POV common among the insane, I'll grant you, but bear with me; I'll make my argument plain and simple, no tin foil required.]

Submitted by lambert on

Yes, do it. A caveat:

It isn't necessary to be sincere to make a good case, or to be a good lawyer (for defense or prosecution). If it were, there would be no lawyers. One may infer sincerity from repeated exposure to content (le style, c'est l'homme) and with some success, but it's always risky, so let's stick to the less tricky evidence and reasoning -- though the evidence in this case is, I think, very tricky, partly because a lot of it depends on small town politics, and partly because the fucking A listers pissed in the well. In any case, sincerity is greatly over-rated as a value.

The case for Palin's Dominionism is a case that needs to be made, and then tested. Whichever way the case proves out, it will serve as good input to a lot of decisions.... And thanks to dogemperor and the various posters on this thread, pro and con, I think the case materials exist.

Do it.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...the actions and/or statements that you cite have to be made by Palin herself as a candidate or public official. I don't care what Palin has said in church, or in reference to her personal/religious beliefs---and I care even less what other people have said that can somehow be connected to Palin.

In other words, every single iota of "evidence" that has been presented so far to "prove" that Palin is bound and determined to impose right-wing Christian dogma as the law of the land is irrelevant.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

"God damn America"?

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I did assume a connect between the emperor thing and gender.

But -- assumption of partisanship -- it was an assumption, I do admit that. But it wasn't totally baseless; dogemperor's post has, even assuming every single link is a valid source, assumptions presented as conclusions, and some pretty loose reasoning. Eg, Palin's motivation for making rape-victims pay for forensic exams is her anti-abortion views. And, as I said, the apocolyptic tone, which I associate with Obama supporters, frankly, because it's all I've been hearing for months. My mistake was aligning those with the partisan behavior of particular partisans. But that doesn't mean the reverse (or obverse, or whatever 'verse) is true; dogemperor may not be partisan, but that doesn't mean her post is credible.

You seem to be familiar with dogemperor's work, but I'm not, maybe others here aren't either. You're starting from the assumption that dogE is credible and tagging me/us for not working on the debunk, I'm asking why the assumption of credibility in the first place?

I tried following that early link to the Salon article and it went to another long Dkos column, on which I couldn't find anything about Salon or book banning with a link to Salon. Probably just a mistake, but I gave up bc I was already pretty discouraged just trying to separate out the Dominionist stuff from Palin's connection to them. I'm hoping Dominionists for Dummies will make things a bit easier before trying again. In any case, I'm done with them for tonight.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla.
Sarah Palin fired the police chief who was chief when she took office.
After she fired him the new chief instituted a policy of charging rape victims for the rape kits.
Palin didn’t stop him from doing this, didn’t speak out against it.
The AK state lege and governor passed a law to stop it.

NONE of those facts have been debunked.

I have never heard of such a thing previous to this. And I don't see why insurance companies should pay. Insurance companies don't pay for finger prints or other investigative expenses when your house is robbed. Criminal justice is a basic obligation of government and it is the mayor's responsibility to see that it is carried out. This is an extreme form of misogyny, a truly cruel practice. Palin failed to uphold justice and richly deserves all the scorn that is being heaped upon her.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm saying that's where the argument was left, and that I can see why it was made.

The whole Palin thing has been a mess ever since the A list pissed in the well at the very beginning, and I do try to keep track. That's why the factcheck.org thing is useful -- at least we know we're dealing with interns who screwed up rather than campaign operatives planting stories....

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Jeez people, take a chill pill. Who can know from any of the nom-de-blog choices really, no one should take offense if the guesses are wrong, who would guess that "Dogemperor" is female, etc etc. I only pointed it out so everyone here would know and we can dispense with the odd formulations and uncertainty. It was just a public service announcement, not an indictment.

Everybody here should take up yoga, or at least learn some deep-breathing exercises. In, out; in, out....

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

From VAWnet.org (discussing VAWA and various state policies for charging):

Insurance coverage. Some states, including Delaware and Pennsylvania, require that the victim’s insurance be used as the first source of payment.(10) Illinois insurance companies are prohibited from incorporating exceptions to coverage in health insurance policies precluding payment of sexual assault exams and testing.(11) The submission of claims for forensic exams to the victim’s insurance company raises privacy concerns. A few states’ laws, like that enacted in New Hampshire, attempt to address this issue.(12)

p.2.

I'm not defending it, but money is tight and towns and municipalities are looking to cut or shift costs where they can. While the victim def. shouldn't pay, when the town pays it's really the taxpayers of the town who are paying. Why should they pay? Why should shareholders in an insurer pay? Really, the rapist should pay, but that's not always possible or practical. Often not, probably. Anyway, that's what I imagine the reasoning is. I tried to research this particular point (separate from Palin this weekend but it's nearly impossible because of the 100s of blogs repeating the original Palin story). So I'm left with my imagination of the arguments, rather than the real ones.

Forensic exams aren't quite asking insurers to pay for fingerprinting. Someone (here? can't remember) suggested that if someone got shot, the insurer would still be expected pay for surgery to get the bullet out. Some forensice exams include more medical-y procedures as part of the exam (not strictly evidentiary), such as a pregnancy test and std testing. And exams are generally done at hospitals or clinics. (pp. 2, 3) So it's kind of an in-between sort of thing.

The one bit of bright news, to which I don't have a link is that I saw an article that said that the policy of some states to not reimburse victims unless they proceeded with a criminal complaint has been forbidden under the latest amendments to VAWA.

Keep in mind, though, the VAWA isn't the law of the land. Like a lot of federal statutes, it's all about funding. If you want money from the feds under the VAWA, you have to abide by its rules, including not charging victims for forensics exams. But if you don't get VAWA money, then you can, as long as your state government doesn't prohibit it.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

makana44's picture
Submitted by makana44 on

I put in one end:
- half a dozen churches
- the last few years
- dominionists
- vice president

and out the other end came:
- one church
- the last 20 years
- black liberationists
- president

Guess who won?

Answer spelled backwards (eno on)

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Oh, noes! Palin is the Manchurian candidate! She's the most dangerous vice presidential candidate in American history E V A H! Matt Damon was right! Dinosaurs, people! Dinosaurs! Won't someone think of the children?!

Now, look you've all made me do. You've sent me on a rage and shock bender. Where's my damned fainting couch, already?

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Plain and simple fact is, as the mayor, she's responsible for the policy. Because that's how municipal liability works.

It took an act of the AK legislature to stop the practice in Wasilla, which means that she didn't stop the practice when she knew about it.

The way you hold a municipality liable for federal constitutional violations (say, by the police) is to make what's called a Monell claim, in which you allege (and prove) that the action that was a violation was pursuant to a policy or practice that was either official or so pervasive that it had to have been known and tolerated by the highest levels of the government.

There's also a legal theory called respondeat superior, in which the boss is held accountable for the actions of an employee when the employee is acting within the scope of that employee's authority. I'm not sure if AK has that, but it's common in state law.

I'm not saying that charging for the rape kits was a constitutional violation, but these theories are helpful to think about when considering whether she's ultimately responsible (plus, it's the area of constitutional law I'm most familiar with).

As mayor, Palin was the highest level of the government. She may not have known about the chief's policy (at least at first), but he was acting within his grant of authority. If anyone had sued to stop the practice, she would have been named as a defendant in her official capacity as mayor.

Certainly, she had to have known about it when it was brought to her attention. I can't believe Tony Knowles didn't try to convince her to drop the practice before he took the step of passing a state law to outlaw it.

As for it being okay, or less of a thing because the insurance companies would be billed: are you fucking kidding me? Not everyone is insured, and not everyone has complete coverage or low deductibles.

Someone in another thread said it was okay because gunshot victims have to pay for their surgery, which produces the evidence of a bullet. But that's a bad analogy, because the rape kit, unlike the surgery, is not treatment. It's purely meant to collect evidence, and as such, it should be the responsibility of the government to pay for it. If they're going to direct the prosecution, then they should pay for the evidence.

It's also really poor police practice to charge victims -- what a great way to discourage reporting rape! Unless they wanted to keep their stats down by suppressing reports.

Submitted by lambert on

Would seem to dispose of the rape kits issue. Thank you, zuzu.

It's killing me this is all not in one place, but I don't have time...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

It could be awful, lunatic, immoral policy -- especially when played out on the national stage -- even if it didn't kick in, in her small town.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Suppose you're walking down a dark street and someone reaches out to grab you, sticks a gun in your nose and demands all your money. If before you can respond they hear footsteps approaching and run off, are you any less traumatized or violated or affronted just because you didn't end up out any cash?

No, I don't agree; the money is the least of it.

And oh dear, Paul; are you really demanding that a rape victim be "identified"? Poor choice of words that. Let's say rather, was a credible complaint ever raised? That's a valid question, although not the whole of it. We'll take a look at Palin's specific actions, in the light of her expressed beliefs and philosophies, and see where that leads us. It is to a very dark and awful place, you'll see.

Submitted by lambert on

dogemperor drops me a line from a random terminal:

RE dog-whistles...the thing is, dominionist groups tend to do their real discussion in code like this. Once I get net access again I'll do a piece on this.

With "Dominionists for Dummies" as a companion piece, maybe we can get a handle on this stuff, assuming no other research takes place in that time.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Of course executives, even of small towns, are responsible for policies. No one was debating that. But, if we are debating that, let's point out that it was also policy in Illinois, and many other places.

That's not what was jihaded across the blogosphere, though, was it? It was 'Palin charges rape victims for rape-kits', not 'Palin's town had policy of charging victims for rape-kits', or 'Palin failed to change town policy of charging~' or 'Wasilla Police Chief suggests they charged insurance companies for~'

If the argument's how much responsibility an exec has for the policies and practices of their city/state/hamlet, as well as how much proof of a policy there is for that very separate point, then let's have that discussion. But declaring Palin's personal responsibility (and personal condemnation for it) while waving evidence of executive responsibility for it is crap. (and where's the call for links for zuzu, Lambert?)

How many bad laws and bad policies stick around until they cause a problem? (er, caucuses, anyone?) How come in 100s of articles, no one (except hipparchia's cmt the other day, I think) thought to ask, or check out how many victims were charged?

All my links/research is at home, and I don't have access to it right now. But I don't need it to know that this statement:

I can’t believe Tony Knowles didn’t try to convince her to drop the practice before he took the step of passing a state law to outlaw it.

easily cuts both ways, if you're not already convinced that what you're trying to prove is true.

If that's not what you meant, then you can ignore this particular rant.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Good, Paul; game on. :-)

I might want to use one or two of those iotas (ioti? Nah, iotas) after I dredge them out of the muck and clean them up a little. There are a number of worthwhile points that have been made, here and elsewhere, but I'll grant that many of them are disjointed and also that a lot of trash has been thrown around; altogether, makes it difficult to see what I interpret as the real picture.

I intend to pull those parts out of the background noise so they can be clearly seen, a pattern of dots to be sure and subject to all the uncertainty that this sort of analysis always contains, but it is just that - an analysis. Can't do rigorous scientific examination, probing and dissecting and slicing and dicing, the subjects would object. What we can do is take what they have said, what they have done, what they haven't said or done but could have, and see if the pattern presents a picture that can reasonably be interpreted in a specific way that is far more likely to be correct than any other explanation. To be credible, the dots should only connect in one meaningful way, without any other rational rhyme or reason available. Fair enough? That's rhetorical; I trust your good sense and good judgment.

"Somehow connected" depends on the “somehow” part, doesn't it? Hearsay, no, won't be needed and neither will I use selective interpretation or pure guilt by association. But when two or more people are acting in concert in the furtherance of an enterprise it is fair to compare their actions and motivations and draw reasonable conclusions from those parallels. No matter what they claim, we all know these fellows are not discussing the latest developments in waste stream recycling techniques:

Photobucket

You’re from Philly; you know these guys and what they’re about and how they work. Rarely is anything said that’s explicit. A wink and a nod, a nudge and a couple of code words and terrible things are arranged. These Dominionist people work the same way, and all I needed to know, everything there is to know, about Sarah Palin was evident the first time I heard her speak. You don’t hear those same things, I accept that, and I understand your skepticism; perfectly reasonable. I’m going to deal just with facts, documentable facts, and prove that she has done something horrible and awful and disgusting and done it out of her religious fanaticism and under color of authority from her elected office.

Give me a few days, the Googlegaggle on Palin is now immense and finding primary references will be a chore. And thanks, Paul, for agreeing to engage; it will be good to talk to you, and - ahem - I mean that sincerely.

Submitted by hipparchia on

waste stream

o/t: on stark's uhc bill, i remain unconvinced of its worthiness, but i'll re-read it, slower this time. it looks like it's setting up a public plan [that has all the complexities of private for-profit plans] to compete with private for-profit plans [see how well that has worked out. medicare hung on by the skin of its teeth in that last one, but only because teh o-l-d pplz are a fearsome lobby].

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

waste stream = garbage. The Soprano gang's cover employment was the garbage business.

Submitted by hipparchia on

[sorry, forgot to close that tag in my post]

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

That’s not what was jihaded across the blogosphere, though, was it? It was ’Palin charges rape victims for rape-kits’, not ’Palin’s town had policy of charging victims for rape-kits’, or ’Palin failed to change town policy of charging~’ or ’Wasilla Police Chief suggests they charged insurance companies for~’

Look, she's the mayor. She can't just stop up her ears and go LALALALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU and get off the hook for being responsible.

If her newly-appointed police chief instituted this policy on her watch, it's her responsibility as mayor. Because even if she didn't know about it, she should have known about it. Because she was the mayor.

If she found out about the police chief's policy and didn't stop it right then and there, then she ratified it and gave it her seal of approval. If the mayor of New York can be held to be constructively responsible for policies instituted by the police commissioner, then the mayor of a town of 5000 can be expected to know what's going on in the police department of her town.

And if she's going to run on her experience, particularly her executive experience, then she has to take the good with the bad. And the bad is that she's ultimately responsible for the fact that the City of Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits. And that would be the case even if it hadn't been brought to her attention and she didn't stop the practice. That she didn't just provides evidence that she approved of it.

seriously. Has ONE rape victim been identified who had to pay out of her own funds for the rape kit?

Because unless you can prove that, you’ve proved nothing.

You know, maybe the ones who didn't have insurance opted not to press charges because of the expense. It's difficult enough to report a rape, let alone to press charges. As if the pain and humiliation in store for the victim who decides to follow through with a criminal case aren't enough, paying hundreds of dollars for a rape kit just to gain the right to prosecute can be a big, big disincentive to reporting the crime. Which, as I said above, is absolutely counterproductive to good policing.

Besides which, the issue isn't whether the cost can be covered by insurance, the issue is the fact that the city of Wasilla shifted the burden of paying to collect evidence onto the victims of crime rather than bearing the cost themselves. But only for this one particular type of crime, which happens to be one that mostly affects women.

Were there so many rapes in Wasilla that the town was going to go bankrupt shelling out a few hundred bucks to get evidence for its own criminal investigations? Maybe once the hockey rink ran into cost overruns.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Yes, she's responsible as an executive, IF that was Wasilla's policy and IF anyone was charged while she was mayor. But that isn't why everyone's recoiling (selectively, hmm, Illinois?) in horror. To claim that the progressives' net uproar is because of massive anger at her executive responsibility is ridiculous.

Wasilla tracks SA reports. There's no rape kit charge to make a report. So expense wouldn't have prevented reporting.

Plus, as any viewer of Law and Order:SVU would know, not every sexual assault reported requires a rape kit.

Someone lifted (again, selectively) a few paragraphs out of an ADN article and PB1.0 went insane. Pretty rich, from a group that thinks their hero is blameless under any circs.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

and up, from what I've read, just for the record.

Look, it's a lousy practice, no question, but let's not pretend it's something unique to Wasilla and Sarah Palin.

I'd still like to know whether Obama ever objected to it in Illinois. Surely such a great champion of women's rights (even though he apparently pays his female staffers far less than McCain does) like Obama would have heard about this as a member of the Illinois legislature and raised the roof, no?

Submitted by hipparchia on

whether it's common practice in other parts of the country to charge victims or their insurance companies for rape kits or not... palin was the boss. if she knew about the police chief's policy and didn't try to change it, then she's hardly a champion of women's rights. if she did not know about the policy, then it speaks poorly of her executive skills.

but yeah, i'm with you too... i'd like to know whether obama knew about, cared about, and/or objected to the practice in illinois [except that i fear the answer will be depressing].

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

No analysis, sorry. Here's the info:

Obama SPONSORED successful legislation in IL to stop rape victims from being charged for kits:

In the state of Illinois, House Bill 1814 (HB1814) amends the Crime Victims Compensation Act.

This amendment sponsored by:

House Sponsors:
WAIT-KLINGLER-MULLIGAN-PARKE.

Senate Sponsors:
DILLARD-OBAMA

It was passed in 2001, IL law site http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet....

This bill:

Amends the Crime Victims Compensation Act to permit emergency awards; to extend the statute of limitations for filing for compensation from one year to 2 years; and to revise subrogation provisions to require deposits into a special fund for costs related to recovery efforts by the Attorney General. Provides that if the Comptroller offsets a claim, the individual or entity receiving the funds must credit the applicant's or victim's account and may not pursue payment from the applicant or victim for the amount. Amends the Court of Claims Act to permit emergency awards to be approved by the decision of one judge.

From University of Chicago http://sexualviolence.uchicago.edu/immed...

According to the Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Act, the Illinois Department of Public Aid will reimburse the costs of ER treatment if you do not have public aid or private medical insurance. Under the Illinois Crime Victim’s Compensation Act, if you report the assault to the police within 72 hours of the crime and if you file a claim application within two years of the date of the crime, you can be reimbursed for out-of-pocket medical expenses, loss of earnings, psychological counseling, and loss of support income due to the crime. Reimbursement can be up to $27,000.

I'm sure Obama did something wrong with this, but I can't quite see it. Someone will point it out, surely.

Submitted by hipparchia on

thanks for doing the homework. on quick reading, looks pretty good to me.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

I'm very relieved to know.

"I’m sure Obama did something wrong with this, but I can’t quite see it. Someone will point it out, surely."

Grow up.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Plus, as any viewer of Law and Order:SVU would know, not every sexual assault reported requires a rape kit.

You're arguing from authority using a TV show?

Yes, she’s responsible as an executive, IF that was Wasilla’s policy and IF anyone was charged while she was mayor.

According to the ADN, which is on the ground in Wasilla,
they did.
McClatchy did a followup which includes an interview with Tony Knowles, who signed the law banning the practice, and cites a 2000 article from Wasilla's local paper quoting the police chief's objections to the law. I certainly trust them more as a news source on Alaska goings-on than I trust you.

But that isn’t why everyone’s recoiling (selectively, hmm, Illinois?) in horror.

So, great mind reader, tell us the real reason. Could it have anything to do with the fact that she's being presented as a strong feminist and pro-woman? Or the fact that even as she says she's strong on fighting sexual assault and domestic violence, her record tells another story?

To claim that the progressives’ net uproar is because of massive anger at her executive responsibility is ridiculous.

I wasn't making that claim, because I couldn't give less of a shit about the netroots and their uproars. I was responding to your ludicrous assertion that somehow she had no responsibility for the policy even though she was mayor.

Wasilla tracks SA reports. There’s no rape kit charge to make a report. So expense wouldn’t have prevented reporting.

Link? Are you getting this from NRO?
I see they also make the claim that she can't be held responsible because she didn't actively approve of the procedure and said she disapproved of it. Which begs the question, why didn't she -- who, after all, was the mayor and the boss of the police chief -- put a stop to it?

Besides, a report is useless without sufficient evidence to prosecute. And the best evidence comes from the rape kit, which is why it's routinely performed.

Someone lifted (again, selectively) a few paragraphs out of an ADN article and PB1.0 went insane. Pretty rich, from a group that thinks their hero is blameless under any circs.

You do realize, don't you, that even if Obama condoned the practice in Illinois (which, if you read BIO's comment above, you can see he didn't), that doesn't make Palin's actions okay? The practice itself is vile. Palin approved of it, whether actively or by her silence when the state asked her police department to stop doing it and had to enact a law banning it in order to get the one police jurisdiction in the entire state of Alaska who charged victims to stop doing it.

It also doesn't matter that other jurisdictions do it, because that simply means that those other jurisdictions are just as wrong as Wasilla. The only difference is that their mayors and former mayors aren't running for Vice-President and claiming to be pro-woman.

Finally, at the NRO link above, they argue that it was okay because the police chief intended that that perp pay at sentencing as part of the victim compensation package. Well, that's terrific, but there are several problems with that argument. One, it still puts the burden on the victim to pay up front to collect evidence to be used by the state for their prosecution. If she doesn't have the money or insurance, she's SOL and can't effectively prosecute the case. Second, it assumes that the rate of conviction is high enough to justify making the victim pay because she'll get her money back eventually. But as we know, rape and sexual assault have one of the lowest conviction rates of any violent crime. Even when there is rock-solid evidence such as videotapes and witnesses.

The burdens to the victim certainly outweigh the benefits to her. The only winner was Wasilla, which didn't have to include rape kits on its budget for the PD.

admin_lambert's picture
Submitted by admin_lambert on

... that Obama's rape kit bill might have been one of the many bills Emil Jones arranged for him to co-sponsor, which constitute almost his entire record in the Illinois Senate. But the timing is wrong; this is a 2001 bill, and Jones's effort to "make me a U.S. senator" was in 2002. So, it looks like Obama actually achieved something for women. All the more odd, then, or not, that he was willing to run the viciously misogynist primary campaign he did -- especially since that's going to affect women and girls for years on a national level.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

"the one police jurisdiction in the entire state of Alaska who charged victims to stop doing it."

Evidence, please.

According to USAToday, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el...)" In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims" and "Rape victims in several areas of Alaska, including the Matanuska-Susitna Valley where Wasilla is, complained about being charged for the tests, victims' advocate Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told state House committees, records show."

See, my problem is not in pasting Palin for permitting this (or anything else legitimate), it's in the need some folks have to exaggerrate and stretch and overstate.

Way too many people took one look at Sarah Palin and made an instant judgment that she must be a very bad, very evil person-- and then went looking for evidence to prove it.

Zuzu, I've read that, too, in various places, that Wasilla was the only jurisdiction in Alaska that did this. But we're at a point with this where you, for example, because you appear to have decided that she's a uniquely bad person, have no problem believing that statement without proof, and I, because I've learned so many of the things said about her are lies or gross distortions, have the opposite reflex to disbelieve it and go looking for evidence to refute it.

In the world as I thought I knew it up until about a year ago, I would never be going around defending someone like Palin, and honestly, I resent like hell being in the position of feeling like I need to do it.

No, strike that. It's more honest to say that I feel very, very sad, very disillusioned, and pretty damn lost.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

seriously. Has ONE rape victim been identified who had to pay out of her own funds for the rape kit?

Because unless you can prove that, you’ve proved nothing.

I'd like to quote now from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, specifically Justice O'Connor's response to Casey's argument that because the husband-notification provision of the PA law under consideration would only affect one percent of women, that it was not an undue burden (emphasis mine):

Respondents attempt to avoid the conclusion that 3209 is invalid by pointing out that it imposes almost no burden at all for the vast majority of women seeking abortions. They begin by noting that only about 20 percent of the women who obtain abortions are married. They then note that, of these women, about 95 percent notify their husbands of their own volition. Thus, respondents argue, the effects of 3209 are felt by only one percent of the women who obtain abortions. Respondents argue that, since some of these women will be able to notify their husbands without adverse consequences or will qualify for one of the exceptions, the statute affects fewer than one percent of women seeking abortions. For this reason, it is asserted, the statute cannot be invalid on its face. See Brief for Respondents 83-86. We disagree with respondents' basic method of analysis.

The analysis does not end with the one percent of women upon whom the statute operates; it begins there. Legislation is measured for consistency with the Constitution by its impact on those whose conduct it affects. For example, we would not say that a law which requires a newspaper to print a candidate's reply to an unfavorable editorial is valid on its face because most newspapers would adopt the policy even absent the law. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant.

It's that one woman who might have to pay out of pocket who's the one we should be considering, not those who have insurance. I'm actually kind of horrified that this line of argument is being used to defend Palin's actions; you're so eager to defend her that you're willing to disregard the harm to that group of women who might have been harmed by this practice.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Maybe too many links?

Anyhow, here's another one: I found the original Frontiersman article about the rape-kit law.

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Submitted by lambert on

But not forever!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

"Most municipal police agencies" ...

Which implies, to me, that Wasilla is not the "only" jurisdiction -- a question of fact that has nothing to do with the policy question.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Insert "almost the" before "only" in that sentence. That doesn't change the fact that the policy existed, that people were charged under the policy, that Palin was the mayor during the time the policy was in effect, and that when the state asked the police chief to stop the policy and he refused, she did nothing.

Either she agreed with the policy and ratified it by her silence, or she didn't have nearly the executive authority as mayor that she has claimed, and thus her claims that she's ready to jump right in and become president in part because of her executive experience running a town is exaggerated.

However, since we're in an evidentiary mood, let's see the proof for this assertion:

But we’re at a point with this where you, for example, because you appear to have decided that she’s a uniquely bad person, have no problem believing that statement without proof

I was not aware that you were privy to my thought processes. Proof of the bolded statement, please.

If there's anything I'm having trouble believing, it's that so many people here are so willing to dismiss her role in a policy that harms women when she's being held out as good for women.

Submitted by lambert on

Zuzu:

I meant to go back and call out that the imputation of a mental state, thank you.

On this thread, the useful factual matter would have been sufficient to make the point, without going the extra step of, as AA would put it, "taking inventory" of someone else's mental state.

OTOH, I think that "so many people here are so willing to dismiss" kinda goes in the same bucket.

I realize that we do have to create models of the world, and that mental states are necessarily part of those models -- CDS is one such model, PDS is another, and indeed OFB is another, and IMNSHO all those models are well attested.

But those models are all consequences of actions taken by political campaigns, which are not hard to model. I think we should be a lot slower to pull the trigger of imputing mental states in individual threads, just because people are so complicated (in fact, that is an effect of partisan politics, to simplify people to cartoons, so they can be dealt with as aggregates).

I'm not sure what to do about this -- and I'm fully aware that, when the joy of battle is on me, I've done the same thing. But there you are.

NOTE In fact, this makes me think that AA might have useful guidelines to follow for online interaction. See Traditions Checklist at "taking other members’ inventories"?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

What I was trying to do was point out that folks on both sides of this, very much including me, have gotten into a reflexive reaction to this stuff that is not contributing to the discovery of any truths.

And given that some folks here very frequently impute mental states to people with whom they disagree, and not infrequently in an extremely nasty and demeaning way, I wonder why this one gets called out.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

That's how it appears to me. That's the impression you have conveyed to me. There is no "proof" of how something "appears" to someone except the fact that it does.

If it's not the case that you've been looking for evidence of her perfidy and evil deeds rather than trying to get a balanced picture of who she is and what she's done, my apologies. If that doesn't apply to you, then I'm sure you'll agree it applies to a whole boatload of other folks on the left.

I'm actually not seeing anybody dismissing her role, just people who don't automatically believe what's being said about what her role actually is/was without evidence.

As to whether she's "good for women" or not, if you mean in the sense of her governance in Wasilla and Alaska, I would certainly like to see what her record is beyond rape kits, which would require, among other things, a detailed digging into budget decisions *in context.* It's beyond my capabilities to do myself, but it would be interesting to read.

My impression is that women's issues per se have not been at the top of her priorities in either position, but what her actual effect on funding, etc., has been, I have no idea. I read she increasd funding for this, slashed funding for that, but rarely with any prior year or legislative context.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

who are presuming --and selling to us-- that Palin is being placed as VP for Dominionist ends and so that she'll put her religious policies into place as our laws, etc, are not at all ever deriding or looking down on those who believe the worst about Obama because of his bio, and religious and political associations (which encompass everything from the muslim stuff to Wright's greatest hits and God Damn America, and Ayers and all the many many many others).

Millions believe the worst about Obama. Millions believe the worst about Palin. Millions believe the worst about McCain. Millions believe that the Clintons really are thoroughly evil and racists. ...

The basis for those beliefs and presumptions about all of them are not convincing those who don't want to be convinced--and are not helping anyone's fav candidate or party--at all.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Zuzu, your additional proof leads right back to the same freakin' Frontiersman article. Where the same quote by Fannon was left out of the frakkin' Dkos article in the first place, which I commented on a week ago. The same quote you left out of your initial comment.

There's a reason why you AND the DKos guy and the 10 pages of Google blog hits that come up when you run a search on the issue left out Fannon's quote from the Frontiersman article. Because it lessens your/their ability to utterly demonize Palin. Some folks might think, oh, gee, maybe Wasilla had the policy they had for some other reason than Palin is a castrating hell-bitch intent on ruining humankind. Uh oh, can't have that. I'm thinkin' some property-tax paying people, for instance, might find billing an insurance company an acceptable thing. Some people might actually stop and think about this, instead of propagating it across the internet in a rage as we want them to.

I made no assertion that she isn't responsible for the rape-kit policy as an executive, which seems to be your major drama here, so you can take your self-righteous rage elsewhere. It is evidently impairing your ability to understand that I was refering to L&O facetiously.

My objection, to the rape-kit story, the book banning story, the wolf-murdering story, the Trig-is-really-Bristol's story, the Alaska Independence story, and the 100s of other stories about Palin actually has nothing to do with whether they're true or not, but with their automatic acceptance and propagation without consideration whether they're true or not, without factchecking, and without asking even a few simple questions about a story that a relatively informed and reasonable person might ask.

Instead, the factchecking only comes after a challenge is made, and suggesting any plausible alternative explanation is met with rage. Q.e.d. and all that.

You may not care whether it's true or not, and you may not care about PB1.0's continuing efforts to ruin public discourse with truthiness, but I frakkin' do.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

This is what I've been yearning for as well:

As to whether she’s “good for women” or not, if you mean in the sense of her governance in Wasilla and Alaska, I would certainly like to see what her record is beyond rape kits, which would require, among other things, a detailed digging into budget decisions *in context.* It’s beyond my capabilities to do myself, but it would be interesting to read.

Somewhere in one of dogemperor's posts (I hope I'm remembering correctly), she mentions that while Palin was governor, a significant amount of funds was given to her previous church. While that seems pretty damning, my first question was whether any other churches or denominations or faith-related programs got govt money while she was Governor. It makes quite a difference.

Research is not just digging up facts to support your opinion. That's advocacy (in its better form) and partisan crap (in its not so better form). Not that partisan reseach is inherently crap (or it used not to be). You can be partisan and still do decent research. I just haven't seen enough of it this year to trust anything.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

... at the risk of pushing you to another thread, that's why PB 2.0.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and cutting funding for them--

Covenant House Director: Our budget was not reduced by Palin -- http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-pol...

The youth center at the church thing was a faith-based funding grant, and she wrote the relevant agency in support of it--and it's just as Christian (and illegal) as almost all faith-based funding grants nationwide are--since Bush made it an ATM for all of them --

http://guthriesguitar.blogspot.com/2008/...

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

I’m actually not seeing anybody dismissing her role, just people who don’t automatically believe what’s being said about what her role actually is/was without evidence.

What's your evidence that I automatically believed anything about her without evidence? What evidence do you need beyond the simple fact that she was the mayor, this happened on her watch, the state asked the police chief to stop the practice, he refused, and she did not take any further action?

I mean, what are you looking for in terms of quantum of proof? I'm satisfied with the above facts pointing to her having known, or should have known, about the policy/practice. I spent a couple of years defending the City of New York against just this kind of thing, and the mayor was always, ALWAYS deemed to be responsible for anything that was done by high-level police officials within the scope of their duties.

Zuzu, your additional proof leads right back to the same freakin’ Frontiersman article. Where the same quote by Fannon was left out of the frakkin’ Dkos article in the first place, which I commented on a week ago. The same quote you left out of your initial comment.

Oh, *do* forgive me for not following your every utterance on this issue.

Again: What's wrong with the Frontiersman article? It was written at the time of the adoption of the state law. I don't imagine that statewide Alaska papers covered this incredibly extensively, or maybe there just arent' archives from back then. It doesn't seem to have hit the national media until now. So you get the Frontiersman article, because that seems to be all there is.

There’s a reason why you AND the DKos guy and the 10 pages of Google blog hits that come up when you run a search on the issue left out Fannon’s quote from the Frontiersman article. Because it lessens your/their ability to utterly demonize Palin.

Speaking of demonization, Valhalla, have you met the kettle? Why are you lumping me in with Cheetoville, and why are you imputing evil intent to me based on my lack of agreement with you?

I didn't find the Frontiersman article until after I wrote my first comment. I didn't realize it was such a touchy thing with you. However, it makes no real difference, as I'll address in a moment.

Some folks might think, oh, gee, maybe Wasilla had the policy they had for some other reason than Palin is a castrating hell-bitch intent on ruining humankind. Uh oh, can’t have that. I’m thinkin’ some property-tax paying people, for instance, might find billing an insurance company an acceptable thing. Some people might actually stop and think about this, instead of propagating it across the internet in a rage as we want them to.

Again with the imputation of evil intent to me. And specifically anti-feminist intent.

Which, BTW, hi, have we met? My name is Zuzu. I write for Shakesville and spent two years at Feministe. I've taken a great deal of shit for defending both Clinton and Palin against sexist smears and arguing that they should be criticized on the merits, not based on what's between their legs. I'll thank you not to presume that I'm only critical of Palin because I'm an Obama-loving misogynist, thank you. You're quite out of line, as well as dead wrong on that.

Also: was not aware that I was in a "rage" about any of this. That's news to me.

I have said not one word about Sarah Palin's motivations or intent; I would thank you not to speculate about mine.

As for the balance of your assertions here, the fact that Fannon put forward neutral-sounding reasons for the policy does not change the fact that the policy is ethically wrong, potentially discriminatory, and just plain bad police practice. His justification is to balance the budget on the backs of crime victims -- but only victims of a certain kind of crime. As I've already argued, it matters not that insurance may cover this, at least for those who have insurance. It matters not that the intention is to someday get the money back from the convicted perp. This is a policy that treats rape victims differently from the victims of any other type of crime, and it presents a potential barrier to the collection of evidence and the prosecution of crime.

That bothers me. If that doesn't bother you, that's your business, but don't try to tell me that I haven't considered the evidence or that I'm only looking for confirmation that Palin is eeeeeeevil.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

billed?

if people have insurance, they usually get billed for every single thing done by EMTs/Ambulance staff/etc and medical personnel (and there's no way those kits and exams were done by regular cops down at the station) -- don't the cops take the women to the hospital or call an ambulance if they were assaulted? If the woman has insurance when brought into the ER, they get billed for everything, like the rest of us.

Wouldn't someone claiming rape or assault of course immediately get medical attention and an examination and treatment in a hospital--just like a beating victim or other type of thing?

When i was bashed, i got billed -- and my bloody face was evidence too.

And we all pay for fingerprinting and collection of other types of evidence and autopsies, etc, anyway--with our taxes.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

"I’m actually not seeing anybody dismissing her role, just people who don’t automatically believe what’s being said about what her role actually is/was without evidence."

"What’s your evidence that I automatically believed anything about her without evidence?"

Well, Zuzu, there you go again. Where's the evidence in that statement that I said you automatically believed anything?

I was DEFENDING myself and Valhalla and other folks here from YOUR false assertion that, "so many people here are so willing to dismiss her role in a policy that harms women."

This is really a complete waste of everyone's time.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Well, Zuzu, there you go again. Where’s the evidence in that statement that I said you automatically believed anything?

By implication. You're setting yourself up as someone who didn't automatically make judgments based on no evidence. Considering that you earlier said this:

But we’re at a point with this where you, for example, because you appear to have decided that she’s a uniquely bad person, have no problem believing that statement without proof, and I, because I’ve learned so many of the things said about her are lies or gross distortions, have the opposite reflex to disbelieve it and go looking for evidence to refute it.

-- in which you accuse me of "appearing" to disregard evidence because I've decided that Palin is a uniquely bad person (and, incidentally, you still haven't shown your work on why you think I "appear" so), it's a fair conclusion.

Certainly, you've drawn a distinction between evidence-loving people such as yourself and non-evidence loving people like me in your earlier statement.

If this is not what you meant to imply, I would be interested in knowing what you did, in fact, mean by it. Also why you've decided that I "appear" to have decided without evidence that Palin is uniquely bad.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

And hospitals can bill the PD or municipality directly for them. They can probably negotiate a better rate that way, too.

A rape kit's only purpose is to collect evidence. It's not for treatment.

Your bloody face was evidence, but all they had to do was describe the injury in the medical record. If photos were taken, did the hospital bill you for those?

In a rape kit, the examiner takes swabs and tissue samples as well as visual/photo evidence. The purpose of this is to determine whether there's any semen or other matter from the perp and to collect and prepare it for use at trial, and to determine whether there was any penetration as well as the nature and extent of the injuries.

This is all for the use of the police and the prosecutor. It's what they need to prosecute the case. It's not done for the treatment of the victim's injuries. She can have that without the rape kit, but an exam without a rape kit isn't going to help her if she wants to press charges.

Other crime victims don't have to pay for the collection of evidence.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

The medical records were evidence--the treatment and everything were all evidence and i paid for them. The records got presented to the grand jury--no pictures were needed. The hospital wrote the descriptions in the records.

Medical records are vital evidence in all sorts of cases--always.

A medical record showing all that was seen and treated for a woman brought in by police or ambulance after claiming rape or assault would include enough evidence itself -- as well as ensure testimony by the medical personnel who treated her, no?

Is a separate rape kit really needed? Do they make for more convictions?

(There's also not always semen or visible evidence that could be photographed, and a hospital would swab and test as part of treatment anyway, no?)

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Other than pouring through individual state and municipal budgets is there a way to find out which cities/states charge victims for them? I find the practice appalling. I think an effort to shame these places should be made.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

The medical records were evidence—the treatment and everything were all evidence and i paid for them. The records got presented to the grand jury—no pictures were needed. The hospital wrote the descriptions in the records.

The treatment you received was the same, regardless of whether it would be used for evidence. It wasn't performed for the sole purpose of collecting evidence; the primary purpose of the treatment was to treat your injuries. You would have needed this treatment regardless of whether you pressed charges.

And your records were probably subpoenaed by the prosecutor at the prosecutor's expense.

A rape kit is used only to collect evidence. It's done in conjunction with a medical exam and by medical personnel, but as I keep saying, its purpose is not treatment. If the victim declines prosecution (or decides not to report), the rape kit isn't done, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't get treatment for her injuries.

There are things that need to be done to collect and preserve the evidence so that it's usable at trial (where you have to establish things like who had custody of it, when it was done, etc.

It's not part of treatment (and I have issues with crime victims having to pay for their own treatment, but until we have a single-payer system, that will continue). It's done to establish whether there was a crime and to preserve evidence of the injuries and the physical evidence.

No, not every rape prosecution will require such evidence, but without some kind of evidence placing the defendant at the scene, you get into a he-said/she-said. Many prosecutors won't go forward if that's all they have. It's hard enough to get a conviction because consent is always an issue even if you can place the defendant at the scene, and juries are notoriously unwilling to accept the word of rape victims that they didn't consent.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I tried to dig up information on the practice of charging for rape-kits last weekend, but the web is so clogged with anti-Palin blog blurps on the subject that I just gave up. Maybe when things calm down a bit.

However, I did find this one site with information (all pre-Palin), that includes some information about how the VAWA applies and some state practices. My reading is that even under the VAWA, municipalities can charge insurers ("full out-of-pocket cost of forensic [sexual assault] medical exams"), but this site isn't a legal analysis site, but an informational site on violence against women.

Forensic exams are indeed conducted in hospitals, and often include tests and procedures not strictly part of evidence collection in some places (eg, pregnancy and std testing).

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen