I liked the title of the blog post on Stop All Monsters so much, I repeated it here.

Most interesting to me about this controversy is how Palin claims to have been a leader of her town, but then people claim she knew nothing of policies that are the most controversial.

Clearly Palin wanted to bill rape victims as a way to dissuade them from reporting the crime. In fact, the state pressed for a bill to ban the charges in response to Palin:

…the Knowles bill that banned charging those who are raped was written BECAUSE ONE TOWN in Alaska was billing victims. Wassila.

Also, you suggestion that there were no rapes during this time doesn’t jive with the fact that the Police Chief in Wassilla stated that making this change meant that the taxpayers would have to now come up with about $14k per year.

This is for real. The state had to step in to stop Palin and her crony police chief from billing victims:

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill — signed into law by Knowles — that banned the practice statewide.

“There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla,” Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla’s newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

“(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests,” the newspaper reported.

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief.

Palin seems to have tried to get the rape numbers down by inconveniencing those who were victims. The harder it is to report a crime, the easier it becomes for her to say there is no rape data, and therefore no case for abortion.

It is not rocket-science to see what life will be like under Palin.

She makes Ayatollah Khomeini look like a kind and democratic man.

I was just in Virginia for a conference. It struck me as odd that so many people there still smoke, and that they smoke in public places. While the rest of the US and world move ahead with safety regulations prohibiting people from blowing known-cancerous plumes into the lungs of others, Virgina seems to be lagging behind.

Call it a stretch but I think this sheds some perspective on the latest news about protection from spam. PC Magazine says Virginia judges have not only ruled against anti-spam laws but also set a North Carolina spam king free:

Friday’s ruling found that the Virginia law is “unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious, or other speech protected by the First Amendment.”

The court found that Virginia’s law does not specifically apply to commericial e-mails, as is the case with many other state laws and the federal Can-Spam Act. As a result, the statute is overly broad and could restrict free speech, the court said.

“Were the Federalist Papers just being published today via e-mail, that transmission … would violate the statute,” according to the ruling.

That sounds like a red herring to me. I suspect only in Virgina would they try to compare the Federalist Papers to spam, and it reflects a very strange and conservative mindset. Were the Federalist Papers distributed after deceptive entry to access a printing press or newspaper? Apparently not:

The Federalist Papers appeared in three New York newspapers: the Independent Journal, the New-York Packet, and the Daily Advertiser, beginning on October 27, 1787.

That says to me that the Federalist Papers were distributed through a system that required approval of editors/managers. The ol’ system had a control point to enforce prohibitions, whereas the spam case was brought by managers of a distribution system who were trying to reduce abuse of their property.

I’ll have to go check out the wording of the Virginia law or maybe find a lawyer who has already done the analysis to see if they judges were smoking something when they decided that the Spam king should be set free to cause more damage to the Internet. It will be interesting to see how Virgina tries to position themselves as a leader in anti-spam, let alone modern thinking, after this setback.

A right-wing religious fundamentalist group called Liberty Legal Institute has stepped into Alaskan politics in a bid to silence free speech.

According to the AP the group contends that no-one should be allowed to investigate and release details of Governor Palin’s Troopergate:

…lawmakers filed suit Tuesday to end the bipartisan investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of the public safety commissioner even though the vice presidential candidate once said she welcomed the probe into allegations of abuse of power.

The lawsuit called the investigation “unlawful, biased, partial and partisan.”

She welcomed the probe, but the religious fundamentalist thugs are stepping in to shut-down the dialogue because they fear it might hurt her chances of being elected.

…she said in July that she’d welcome and cooperate with the investigation ordered by the Legislative Council. “Hold me accountable,” said had said.

Compare that with the critics of the lawsuit:

“There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election,” said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. “We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it.”

Clarkson said he and a nonprofit legal firm in Texas, Liberty Legal Institute, were donating their work on the suit.

I do not understand. Partisan reasons to stop an investigation are acceptable? According to whom? What reason is there to delay an investigation other than to hide the results and censor or silence critics? Palin herself asked to be held accountable, so why not hold her accountable?

Donation is such a loaded term.

What they probably mean is that the GOP is taking contributions from churches to cover legal work for the election. They would rather protect Palin from Troopergate instead of helping the poor, the needy or the disenfranchised.

What else has the Liberty Legal Institute done?

Their site says they have fought to protect prayer in school (Croft, et al. v. Governor of Texas), they have tried to remove controls regulating and zoning property for churches (Plano Vietnamese Baptist Church (PVBC), et al. v. City of Plano and Templo Bautista Nueva Jerusalen v. City of Duncanville and Collegiate Community Outreach (CCO) d/b/a UNT Chi Alpha, and Nathan Wesson v. City of Denton, et al.).

They fight against freedom of speech as they work to advance christian influence over schools and government. When these fundamentalists win, they will make others pray to them and their god and demand that everyone call it “freedom”.

Moreover, they have fought to increase corruption in government by arguing gifts should be allowed as part of the selection process for officials (Free Market Foundation, et al. v. David A. Reisman, et al.). Clearly they consider corruption and cronyism a benefit of the free market, as though they believe in some sort of demented and highly ironic Nietzsche superman system of governance.

No surprise, given all this, that they try to confuse “protect religious freedoms” with “First Amendment rights”. It is an intentional mistake. They wave the Constitution as a form of camouflage. They need to cover their intent to stop you from flying free. Once all the targets are all eliminated, wings clipped, there will be no need for the veil of a Constitution. In the meantime, they will tell you they are here for your own safety…

The BBC says Israelis have found DNA tests of dog feces to be an effective method for pet control:

Authorities in Petah Tikva, near Tel Aviv, are setting up a special DNA database of local dogs.

They will use the data to match dogs’ droppings to owners – and punish those who do not clean up after their pets.

The system is said to be voluntary:

At the moment providing a DNA sample was up to individual dog owners, but the city was considering making it compulsory, she added.

Funny. This seems like a good use of technology. Combined with video surveillance, the dog poop threat might finally be under control. Worth the cost? The BBC suggests the cost of cleanup by UK councils is over £22m a year.

Will they next take fingerprints from garbage?

Davi