A Palin thread from an Alaskan

[shrumpage]

Apple I appreciate what you are trying to do in this thread. I've lived in Alaska for about 20 years now, minus a 3 year stint in Oregon, and you are giving some accurate insight to how things are up here.

Good chucks of Alaska are underdeveloped we have villages struggling to heat their homes in the winter, and keep their generator running. In my town, Kodiak, they replaced one of the main roads through town, they had to dig down 5-6 feet to remove the original timbers that the Russians had used when they built the road. We also have a 'bridge to nowhere' it was built prior to my arrival but use used to connect the main island to a smaller one to have easier access to a larger boat harbor. Its become more developed over the years with two research facilities and the seaplane port. With out the bridge our economic growth, and now research would have been stunted.

I really didn't care about the governor race the last go, didn't really care much about Palin in till a few months after she took office. A friend who has dealings with the state legislature, after the trip he gave a report of a couple of things, but what stood out to me was about Palin.

He made the comment that the democrats found it much easier to work with her then the previous admin. Where Murkowski would be hard to work with, stone wall, and uncompromising - Palin wasn't. She was willing to work with 'the other side' to come to an agreement. In places she wouldn't sign off, it wasn't " not going to do it" to "this is reason why i'm not signing..."

That is the kind of person i want in politics.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Christ, read the article already:

George Bryson | Anchorage Daily News

last updated: September 11, 2008 07:41:22 AM

Two state leaders lashed out at the public record of Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday as witnesses in a new "Alaska Mythbusters" forum coordinated by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Man, you are nasty. I told you it was blocked.

Was this a policy in place before Palin was mayor? Is this a policy she enacted?

Also, Tony Knowles is hardly a reputable source. He is just as bad as Murkowski.

Look, you cannot blindly blame Palin for this. Was it SOP for the police department? Did she enact it? Did she know about it? Or was it simply something that went on while she was the mayor?

Edited: quotes messed up.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Thanks, your answers tell me all I need to know about your lapdog defense of Palin.

Do you know anything about healthcare? Palin isn't responsible for what a hospital charges a patient.

It's not a health service, it's a forensic service for investigative purposes.

It is a health service. They take a swab and retrieve bodily fluids from your vagina. They look for bruises, and pubic hairs. It is done, generally, by a nurse. It is invasive. It is not done at your local police department by Deputy Pyle.

Again, this may, *may*, be something I disagree with. But does it make Palin a bad candidate? No!

I still want to know if this was her law, or something in place when she took office. Is this something where she sat down and said "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea!" Even then, I'm not convinced that a small town with a limited budget should foot the bill for stuff like this.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
<snip>

In 99.99999999% of the cities in our country, the rape kit is part of the forensic evidence paid for by the state.
In Wasilla under Palin and her newly appointed police chief, it was not.

If I read the article correctly, Palin was the major, and the rape kit supposed to be pay be the state, not city... hummm...she wasn't the governor of the state then, would the then governor be responsible for that?

Edit: If the policy was changed when Palin took over as major and the city didn't have any budget problems, then I can see your point.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Thanks, your answers tell me all I need to know about your lapdog defense of Palin.

Do you know anything about healthcare? Palin isn't responsible for what a hospital charges a patient.

It's not a health service, it's a forensic service for investigative purposes.

It is a health service. They take a swab and retrieve bodily fluids from your vagina. They look for bruises, and pubic hairs. It is done, generally, by a nurse. It is invasive. It is not done at your local police department by Deputy Pyle.

Again, this may, *may*, be something I disagree with. But does it make Palin a bad candidate? No!

I still want to know if this was her law, or something in place when she took office. Is this something where she sat down and said "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea!" Even then, I'm not convinced that a small town with a limited budget should foot the bill for stuff like this.

When is the last time anyone you know had a doctor advise them they need a "rape kit" exam??? Is it something every woman should schedule annually once they reach a certain age???

You're either being intentionally difficult, or you're a "homer" like someone else already mentioned.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Playing devil's advocate...why should any health service be free of charge? Why should the hospital have to pay for such a kit?

A rape kit is NOT a "health service." It's an investigative tool used to prosecute (or exonerate) suspected rapists. It's akin to asking a gunshot victim to pay for the forensic test on the gun to prove the bullet he got shot with was fired by the defendant.

Devil's Advocate is right.

"I was raped...."
"Please pay $350 for the rape processing kit."
"I can't afford that!"
"Well that's too bad. Guess the guy will go free."

[Pan the camera down, through the bedrock, the earth's crust, into a cavernous fiery interior. There stands Satan, Most Unclean, Little Horn (I do love the old names). He glances upwards, and his ability to perceive all evil allows him to see the woman trudge from the hospital, the rape kit unused. He slowly smiles]

"Wasilla is MINE! MWHAHAHAHAHA!"

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

The thing that does bother me though is the ANWR issue. Have you been to ANWR? Have you seen it? I don't think people understand how vast it is.

Have you seen the effects of global warming and the eradication of species? They're two separate but interrelated issues, both of which are strongly tied to the survival of humanity on this planet. I have to ask if you understand how vast those implications are.

ANWR has been a long time coming. They say ten years for oil. We wanted to drill ten years ago. That means we would have had oil today. But we keep saying no, it will take too long. I'm sorry, but that is not a valid excuse. Everything takes time. Drill today, so in ten years when we need it people aren't complaining saying "If we drill, it will take ten years!"

And it would have been just as useless, then.

[/b]Study: ANWR oil would have little impact
Heavy reliance on foreign imports would continue, agency finds[/b]

updated 9:45 p.m. ET March 16, 2004

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America?s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge?s oil remained off the market.
.
.
(continues)

The article contains arguments from both sides, but the impact it would have if we started drilling, now, is squat, and everything I've read says the impact would have been the same if it were started ten years ago.

Why do you say it is a waste of resources? There is a lot of oil down there. Estimates put it at enough oil to supply the entire country for 50 years. That is just an estimate.

I question your figures. Got a source? Here's one for mine.

Department of Energy projections and estimates

Estimates of oil reserves

In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area. In comparison, the estimated volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the rest of the United States is about 120 billion barrels (1.9×1010 m3). The ANWR and undiscovered estimates are categorized as unproved. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) reports US proved reserves are roughly 29 billion barrels (4.6×109 m3) of crude and natural gas liquids, of which 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) are crude. A variety of sources compiled by the DOE estimate world proved oil and gas condensate reserves to range from 1.1 to 1.3 trillion barrels (210 km3).

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day (124,000 m³/d) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day (113,000 m³/d) in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day (231,000 m³/d), respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels (4.1E+8 m3) for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), respectively. In 2007, the United States consumed 20.68 m bbls of petroleum products per day. It produced roughly 5 million barrels per day (790,000 m³/d) of crude oil, and imported 10 million barrels per day (1,600,000 m³/d) of crude and 3.5 million barrels per day (560,000 m³/d) of petroleum products.

The USGS warns that there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR, since its estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring lands which continue into ANWR. Because of this, its estimates of the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.

Projected impact on global price

The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. "The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case." "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
When is the last time anyone you know had a doctor advise them they need a "rape kit" exam??? Is it something every woman should schedule annually once they reach a certain age???

You're either being intentionally difficult, or you're a "homer" like someone else already mentioned.

I understand it is for forensic uses. However, it is a health service since it involves a human and invasive techniques.

As for jonks, it is very much different than firing a gun. It is a service provided to examine a patient after they have been raped and to check for damage and evidence.

In much the same way, a person can come into the hospital badly beaten. They will be treated for wounds (and charged) but they can also have pictures and other forensic evidence taken for the investigation. It isn't one or another.

If a child comes into the ER and the physician suspects that the patient is being abused, he can order a boney survery and image the entire body to look for suspect fractures and other signs of abuse. Yes, this can be good evidence. It doesn't change the fact that it is a medical procedure on a patient.

In the same sense, a patient can opt to have the rape kit done by a nurse. Yes, it is wise to do it and I personally think it should be subsidised, or waived by the hospital. However, it does not negate the fact that it is a medical procedure.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566
When is the last time anyone you know had a doctor advise them they need a "rape kit" exam??? Is it something every woman should schedule annually once they reach a certain age???

You're either being intentionally difficult, or you're a "homer" like someone else already mentioned.

I understand it is for forensic uses. However, it is a health service since it involves a human and invasive techniques.

As for jonks, it is very much different than firing a gun. It is a service provided to examine a patient after they have been raped and to check for damage and evidence.

In much the same way, a person can come into the hospital badly beaten. They will be treated for wounds (and charged) but they can also have pictures and other forensic evidence taken for the investigation. It isn't one or another.

If a child comes into the ER and the physician suspects that the patient is being abused, he can order a boney survery and image the entire body to look for suspect fractures and other signs of abuse. Yes, this can be good evidence. It doesn't change the fact that it is a medical procedure on a patient.

In the same sense, a patient can opt to have the rape kit done by a nurse. Yes, it is wise to do it and I personally think it should be subsidised, or waived by the hospital. However, it does not negate the fact that it is a medical procedure.

It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Edited out all the stuff. Post got too long.

[/quote]

You have very many valid points, but I do not want to argue those here. I don't want to argue about how much oil is up here. There are figures all over the place and it really depends on who you choose to believe. Example: I believe in global warming, but from my formal education and speaking with scientists at our university, I also believe it has much more to do with the natural cycle of the earth than us. This is a point I do not want to argue on because it is fruitless.

Further, when anyone starts citing Wikipedia as their reference I realize I have lost the argument do to complete inability to reason and find independent sources.

This is about Palin, not my own belief system and whether or not *I* think abortion should be legal or whether *I* think ANWR is a good idea.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

Don't be silly, Apple would bill the next of kin.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

<sigh>

Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies.

An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
As for jonks, it is very much different than firing a gun. It is a service provided to examine a patient after they have been raped and to check for damage and evidence.

In much the same way, a person can come into the hospital badly beaten. They will be treated for wounds (and charged) but they can also have pictures and other forensic evidence taken for the investigation. It isn't one or another.

If a child comes into the ER and the physician suspects that the patient is being abused, he can order a boney survery and image the entire body to look for suspect fractures and other signs of abuse. Yes, this can be good evidence. It doesn't change the fact that it is a medical procedure on a patient.

In the same sense, a patient can opt to have the rape kit done by a nurse. Yes, it is wise to do it and I personally think it should be subsidised, or waived by the hospital. However, it does not negate the fact that it is a medical procedure.

I really wished you were kidding with this argument.

Starting next year, every state will be paying for anonymous rape kits:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24600171/

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

what sort of gobbledy doublespeak is that?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

<sigh>

Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies.

An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

No, they're not. They're performed when there is need for it in a criminal/legal sense. Just like your "rape kits".

I've had more intelligent conversations with a labrador retriever.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
As for jonks, it is very much different than firing a gun. It is a service provided to examine a patient after they have been raped and to check for damage and evidence.

In much the same way, a person can come into the hospital badly beaten. They will be treated for wounds (and charged) but they can also have pictures and other forensic evidence taken for the investigation. It isn't one or another.

If a child comes into the ER and the physician suspects that the patient is being abused, he can order a boney survery and image the entire body to look for suspect fractures and other signs of abuse. Yes, this can be good evidence. It doesn't change the fact that it is a medical procedure on a patient.

In the same sense, a patient can opt to have the rape kit done by a nurse. Yes, it is wise to do it and I personally think it should be subsidised, or waived by the hospital. However, it does not negate the fact that it is a medical procedure.

I really wished you were kidding with this argument.

Starting next year, every state will be paying for anonymous rape kits:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24600171/

OH NOESS!!!!!!!! Socialized medicine!!!!!!! :laugh:

 

[OrByte]

Guys give Apple a break. He came on here, said his piece, had his reasons to, and he has his opinions.

Not everybody is right, and not everybody is wrong.

Thanks Apple for some insight on what Alaskans think.

 

[SnarkRap]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

<sigh>

Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies.

An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

Slowly, your veil of "aw shucks" innocence slips away.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Well, what started off as a good thread with great discussion has, in typical Anandtech fashion, been ruined by the pedantic rantings of people like jonks and jpeyton.

I came here to give some insight into Palin and Alaska, not defend her every move or be her personal fanboy.

Thanks to all who contributed, especially Harvey, heyheybooboo, OrByte, lupi, and the rest like them.

I guess one big difference between Alaskans and those of you down there are how we argue politics. Read our local newspaper and message boards. Many of us would be considered more independent or middle road, but we can come together on issues.

Sarah Palin is about compromise, and not just jumping to the defense of her party. She has probably caused the republican party and their special handshake bullshit club more grief than anyone can image.

She has proven to be fantastic for the state. She has made some errors, but I think they are mostly rookie errors and are not egregious. I believe they are really nit picky. She hasn't traveled enough; she was only mayor of a small town; she was only governer of sparley populate state; she has a pregnant daughter; people in her church speak in tongues; etc.

Please notice I did not slam Obama, nor did I say Sarah is golden. I think she is a level headed human that cares a lot about the constiuents and does the right think most of the time.

I do think it is time for Sarah to quit giving the same speech and nail some of the hard issues. However, McCain has his own campaign agenda and it will come in time.

Thanks to everyone who truly contributed.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Well, what started off as a good thread with great discussion has, in typical Anandtech fashion, been ruined by the pedantic rantings of people like jonks and jpeyton.

I came here to give some insight into Palin and Alaska, not defend her every move or be her personal fanboy.

Wow you have a short memory. I know it was 9 pages ago, but really.

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
There are a lot of people from outside who only hear the mudslinging and rumors about Sarah Palin. Let's set a couple of things straight.

1) Troopergate. Yes, the trooper involved was her brother-in-law. However, he tased his ten year old step-son. Yes, it was in a controlled environment. However, people do die from tasers and this was terrible judgement from a trooper.

The guy was also a drunk and a terrible officer. Most of us believe Sarah was right

2) Bridge to nowhere. This whole thing is silly So yes, she said no to a somewhat good idea

3) She has done a lot for the state. She is regarded as the best governer here in 28 years.

4) Our previous governer bought a jet. The first thing Sarah did: put the jet on e-Bay.

5) but she flies coach to and from Juneau.

6) She got rid of her personal driver. She saved us money by driving herself to work.

7) She got rid of the family chef. She, or her husband, cook themselves, saving us money.

8) She billed us for travel within the state. This is acceptable.

9) She billed per diem when she was at home. This is a little iffy. She followed the law though.

10) She is Christian, as is 80% of the US. She goes to church, but never once have I heard her reference god or religion in any decisions she has made for the state.

11) She was "only the mayor of a small town." Since Sarah has become mayor, that small town has boomed.

12) She wants to drill ANWR while looking for alternative energy. Look, almost all Alaskans want to drill ANWR, including many native villages. Why?

Sarah doesn't take crap, and isn't bullied. She is a woman who cannot be bought, and it is pretty clear that she does the right thing in most cases.

Nope, you didn't come here to defend her. :roll: Look, it's ok if you did, it's what we all do here, but you can't post in a thread and say "I'm not here to defend her" when a few hours ago you started a thread defending every choice she's ever made. That'd be like hiring a lobbyist, getting millions in earmarks, campaigning for governor on getting tons of money for your state, and then standing up at a convention and proclaiming that you said "no thanks" to federal money. Wait....

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

<sigh>

Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies.

An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

No, they're not. They're performed when there is need for it in a criminal/legal sense. Just like your "rape kits".

I've had more intelligent conversations with a labrador retriever.

I understand that. What you do not understand is that autopsies are performed by a state medical examiner wheares a rape kit is performed by a nurse in a clinical setting. The difference being that a rape kit is performed on someone who has been violated, is scared, timid, and may not want it done. They are absolutely a patient.

At least most of the people here are mature enough to come up with some sort of argument or question, and answer points and respond with counterpoints in the pursuit of knowledge. You have to stoop to sarcasm, the lowest for of wit. It must make you feel good to truly be the lowest common denominator.

I apologize that you find the company that your labrador retriever offers you is more intellectually satisfying than what I have to say. Maybe you should get out a little more.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: jonks
Nope, you didn't come here to defend her. :roll: Look, it's ok if you did, but you can't stand on a stage and say "I'm not here to defend her" when a few hours ago you defended every choice she's ever made. That'd be like hiring a lobbyist, getting millions in earmarks, campaigning for governor on getting tons of money for your state, and then standing up at a convention and proclaiming that you said "no thanks" to federal money. Wait....

I didn't defend her every move. My initial posting had defense and mitigation, but that certainly isn't her every move. I clearly pointed out things I disagreed with. You choose to ignore that.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

<sigh>

Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies.

An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

No, they're not. They're performed when there is need for it in a criminal/legal sense. Just like your "rape kits".

I've had more intelligent conversations with a labrador retriever.

While I think AOS is blinded by his adoration of Palin and going above and beyond to defend her I don't think it's necessary to say that.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's official, you're a homer.

So, by your definition, a corpse could be billed for it's own autopsy???

<sigh>

Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies.

An autopsy is not a medical procedure on a patient by current procedural technology codes, whereas much of what is done in a sexual assault examination is.

No, they're not. They're performed when there is need for it in a criminal/legal sense. Just like your "rape kits".

I've had more intelligent conversations with a labrador retriever.

I understand that. What you do not understand is that autopsies are performed by a state medical examiner wheares a rape kit is performed by a nurse in a clinical setting. The difference being that a rape kit is performed on someone who has been violated, is scared, timid, and may not want it done. They are absolutely a patient.

At least most of the people here are mature enough to come up with some sort of argument or question, and answer points and respond with counterpoints in the pursuit of knowledge. You have to stoop to sarcasm, the lowest for of wit. It must make you feel good to truly be the lowest common denominator.

I apologize that you find the company that your labrador retriever offers you is more intellectually satisfying than what I have to say. Maybe you should get out a little more.

I only "stoop" to give someone else a fighting chance.


Whatever helps you sleep at night though ...

 

[QED]

I can only imagine the kind of greeting jonks and company would've given AoS had he been an Alaskan who did nothing but wrote about how he disliked Palin. They would be tripping over themselves welcoming him onto their bandwagon. I doubt we would hear jonks say we shouldn't take AoS seriously unless he had at least one positive thing to say about Palin, would we? I didn't think so.

Instead, AoS gets ridiculed because he has an opinion that is slightly more informed than theirs. Go figure.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: QED
I can only imagine the kind of greeting jonks and company would've given AoS had he been an Alaskan who did nothing but wrote about how he disliked Palin. They would be tripping over themselves welcoming him onto their bandwagon. I doubt we would hear jonks say we shouldn't take AoS seriously unless he had at least one positive thing to say about Palin, would we? I didn't think so.

Instead, AoS gets ridiculed because he has an opinion that is slightly more informed than theirs. Go figure.

I would ridicule anyone that thought a rape kit is a medical service ....