Here’s Wikipedia:

In a politico-religious context, dominionism (also called subjectionism) is the tendency among some politically-active Christians, especially in the United States, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.¹

Lots of us Alaskans have been kinda wondering if Governor Sean Parnell — sometimes called “SP2″ since he follows in the footsteps of former governor Sarah Palin — might be one. Especially after his February 11 appointment² (currently awaiting confirmation) of Valdez  ultraconservative Don Haase of the ultraconservative Eagle Forum — an affiliation Haase neglected to include on his resume — to the Alaska Judicial Council.  As I wrote in a comment on the Anchorage Daily News story³ about the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Haase,

Putting people like Haase on the Judicial Council is part of Parnell’s participation with ChangePoint, Alaska Family Council, & related to try to overturn judicial independence in Alaska. Over the past couple years they’ve attempted to get rid of the Alaska Constitution’s provisions about the Judicial Council (via lawsuit in the case of Miller v. Carpeneti); they’ve tried to force judges up for retention to answer litmus test questions on abortion & LGBT rights; now they’re trying to stack the Judicial Council with members who will also work to keep nominees for the bench out based on those same litmus test questions.

That’s what Haase’s about, that’s what Gatto chair of House Judiciary is about, that’s what Sean Parnell is about. They don’t want _good_ judges: they want judges who will be in ideological agreement with them.³

Henkimaa readers may remember that I wrote quite a bit a couple years back  about the  Miller v. Carpeneti lawsuit, which sought to overturn provisions of the Alaska Constitution with regard to judicial selection and to undermine the checks and balances of our governmental system by placing more power into the hands of the executive branch at the expense of the judicial branch. See the post “Lawsuit asks feds to overrule Alaska Constitution” for a discussion of those issues.⁴

See also the post “Miller v. Carpeneti: The conservatives behind the attack on Alaska judicial independence and impartiality”⁵: One of the plaintiffs in that case is Carl Ekstrom who was a development director at the Anchorage megachurch ChangePoint.⁶ And guess what? — Sean Parnell also attends ChangePoint.⁷ Now, I don’t know that the church itself is attempting to promote this longterm campaign against judicial independence, but it’s where a lot of religious right activists rub shoulders, and events are frequently held there related to rightwing political issues, such as abortion.

Another plaintiff in Miller v. Carpeneti was Anchorage attorney Kenneth Kirk, an Anchorage attorney practicing in the areas of family law, estate planning, adoptions, and elder law. According to a 2009 Anchorage Press article by Scott Christiansen,

He’s also done some in-court activism on behalf of James Dobson’s Family Research Council, a major national policy arm of the conservative Christian movement. When the FRC wanted to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Alaska lawsuit over parental consent and minors choosing abortion, they called on Kirk.⁸

And so who else should show up on Sean Parnell’s February 11 appointment list but Kenneth Kirk?² — in his case, the appointment was to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), the state agency charged with administering Alaska’s laws on campaign disclosure, financial disclosure of legislative and public officials, and lobbying regulation.  What a great place for an ideologically driven Republican Party of Alaska attorney⁹ to find himself.

Kirk was questioned on March 17 in the Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee about his views. Here’s an excerpt from the committee’s minutes:

SENATOR PASKVAN noted Mr. Kirk’s writing on the merit based system for the selection of judges sets out a dichotomy between liberal and conservative, and asked how he would apply that distinction in his work with APOC.

MR. KIRK replied that is his private citizen view. As a commissioner he would need to be more careful and considered in his decisions. He noted that he writes for the Bar Rag and his writings often try to shake things up; as an APOC commissioner he would be much more cautious.¹⁰

But can he be?

Questioning went into Mr. Kirk’s use of the word weapon in a 2007 article he wrote for Americans United for Life titled “Alaska: Conservative State, Liberal Judiciary” — essentially a report on the state of the Alaska judiciary regarding the issue of abortion from a “right to life” perspective.  Here’s the quote at issue:

In the past decade, the Alaska Supreme Court has gone far beyond the United States Supreme Court (“USSC”) in making it difficult for the legislature or governor to restrict or limit abortions, using the state constitution as its weapon.¹¹

From the committee minutes:

SENATOR PASKVAN  noted the phrase  “using the  state constitution as  a   weapon”  in  Mr.   Kirk’s  writing  is  a   concern.  The constitution is more of a  standard than a weapon. That reference was made  to the Alaska  Supreme Court. The writing  was “Alaska: Conservative State, Liberal Judiciary.”

MR. KIRK said  he did that writing at the request of an advocacy organization. The  reference was to the Supreme Court trying to push a particular agenda.

SENATOR PASKVAN said he was focused  on the word “weapon” and why Mr. Kirk would use that term.

MR. KIRK said he doesn’t recall,  but his point was probably that the court  was  not  interpreting the  constitution  but  rather misusing it to push a particular agenda.¹⁰

But it could be just as easily argued that Mr. Kirk’s article was pushing an agenda and that the Alaska Supreme Court, charged with interpreting the Alaska Constitution, was doing just that.  Certainly the lawsuit in which Mr. Kirk joined in 2009, Miller v. Carpeneti, was squarely aimed at toppling the judicial independence — i.e., independence from political and ideological litmus tests — provided to the Alaska Supreme Court and the rest of the Alaska judiciary under the Alaska Constitution.

In any case, Mr. Kirk passed committee muster and his name will go forward to a joint meeting for confirmation to APOC.  Do we want him there?  If you don’t — call or write your legislators.

But Kenneth Kirk and Don Haase are Sean Parnell’s political appointees.  What about Sean Parnell himself?

As it happens, earlier today my colleague at Bent Alaska, E. Ross, posted a lengthy article about Parnell’s own activities indicating Christian dominionist leanings.  Her article, “Gov. Parnell, Choose Respect for All Alaskans,” calls Gov. Parnell out about the contradictions inherent in his “Choose Respect” campaign against sexual assault and domestic violence, in which he “calls for a cultural shift…towards honor and respect for all Alaskans” even as he shows anything but respect for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans Alaskans and our families.¹² The article is worth quoting at length:

Last week, the state senate questioned Don Haase, recent president of the anti-gay Eagle Forum and Parnell’s choice for the panel that nominates state judges. Haase kept off his resume his leadership role in the extreme conservative group, but admitted that he thought sex outside of marriage should be illegal, saying, “I think that would be up to the voters… I can see legitimate reasons to push that as a crime.”

(The judicial panel only has three members of the public, and already has one far right member: Sarah Palin appointed Kathleen Tompkins-Miller, wife of tea party Senate candidate Joe Miller, to the council in 2009.)

Let’s put the pieces together on Don Haase – the person Sean Parnell wants to pick our state judges – and LGBT Alaskans: Leader of the Eagle Forum which pushes a strong anti-gay agenda, worked against the effort to allow same sex marriages in Alaska, worked to take away domestic partnership benefits for same sex partners of state employees, worked against hate crimes protections and non-discrimination laws, and clearly does not support even civil unions. So sex outside of marriage is a crime, and gay and lesbian couples must not be allowed to get married, therefore… consensual sex between two adults of the same gender should be illegal.

This is not the way to choose respect for all Alaskans.

Last year, Parnell flew to Colorado on state money to spend the day with Focus on the Family.¹³ He told them about his Choose Respect project and other ideas for Alaska. Why? He doesn’t need their approval to start a sexual assault and child abuse prevention program in Alaska. What would a corporation that sells harmful pray-away-the-gay workshops tell the governor of another state about his domestic violence project?

The hate watch site Good As You writes:

“Focus on the Family dedicates much time to keeping same-sex couples away from adoption, foster care, and a whole host of protections that strengthen LGBT families. And of course they work every day to deny a fair shake to gay kids and/or the kids of gay parents… [They] talk only about the kind of ‘strong family environment’ that’s defined by evangelism and heterosexuality.”

This is not the way to choose respect for all Alaskans.…

OK, Gov. Parnell. Put your money where your mouth is. Tell ALL Alaskans who have been abused, including LGBT Alaskans, that you support us and we are not alone. Show all Alaskans, including LGBT Alaskans and those who abuse us, that together we can break the silence and choose respect. Walk the talk: Be a role model for how to choose respect by choosing leaders who respect all Alaskans. Call for a cultural shift towards honor and respect for all Alaskans and encourage the legislature to pass Hate Crimes and non-discrimination bills that include sexual orientation and gender identity. Or start small and proclaim June 2011 as LGBT Pride Month in Alaska. Do it.

Stand at the point of the spear and choose respect for all Alaskans. And mean it.¹²

But something tells me… he won’t. I think we’d be fairly safe to say that Parnell is a Christianist & dominionist, much like Sarah Palin — except not quite so noisy about it. Which actually makes him more effective at it.

Looking forward to a rightwing Alaska theocracy? No?  Then what will you do about it?

References

1. “Dominionism.” Article on Wikepedia.
2. 11 Feb 2011. “Governor Delivers Appointments to Legislature” (press release) (Office of Governor Sean Parnell).
3. 24 Mar 2011. “Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee: Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues” by Richard Mauer (Anchorage Daily News). See also reader comments.
4. 8/27/09. “Lawsuit asks feds to overrule Alaska Constitution” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
5. 11 Sep 2009. “Miller v. Carpeneti: The conservatives behind the attack on Alaska judicial independence and impartiality” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
6. Google search on “changepoint” + “carl ekstrom.”
7. Google search on “changepoint” + “sean parnell.”
8. 9/2/09. “Battle for the bench – Why do conservatives want to change the way Alaska picks its judges?” by Scott Christiansen (Anchorage Press).
9. 20 Oct 2010. “Alaska Supreme Court hears arguments on write-in lists” by Joshua Saul (Alaska Dispatch).
10. 17 Mar 2011. Minutes of the Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee. (Alaska State Legislature).
11. “Alaska: Conservative State, Liberal Judiciary” by Kenneth Kirk (Americans United for Life, 2007).
12. 31 Mar 2011. “Gov. Parnell, Choose Respect for All Alaskans” by E. Ross (Bent Alaska).
13. 10 Jun 2010. “Alaska pays for Parnell’s date with Colorado homophobes” by E. Ross (Bent Alaska).

Related posts:

1. Lawsuit asks feds to overrule Alaska Constitution
2. Miller v. Carpeneti: Judge Sedwick's opinion
3. Miller v. Carpeneti: Case dismissed

Palin: Flailin' failin' and probably bailin' -- a sign from the Hold Palin Accountable Rally, 27 Sep 2008, Anchorage, AK. Prophetic, too: she bailed 10 months later.

I don’t usually read Conservatives for Palin.  For one thing, I don’t have much use for unmitigated laudatoriness toward my former governor about whom I have all manner of reasons to be unfavorably impressed — her incessant untruth-telling, her vindictiveness, her Christianist/Dominionist views, her habit of quitting jobs half-done (though to tell the truth, I’m glad she quit as governor — Sean Parnell ain’t no superhero, but he’s a vast improvement over both his last two predecessors), & her speeches full of the same old tired conservative talking points over & over & over & over [yawn] again.  Oh yes, & let us not forget her famous 2 million dollar meme, which has the distinction of having led to the most popular post on my blog to date. [Ref #1] It also has a nice pie chart that I made, which I will take the opportunity to show off now.

The 2 million dollar meme pie chart, which I created to demonstrate what it cost the Alaska Personnel Board to investigate ethics complaints against Sarah Palin. Notice how 63% of costs were from Troopergate, including the "frivolous" ethics complaint Palin made against herself. Click through on the pie chart to get to my Flickr photostream, where it can also be viewed full-size.

It was with some bemusement, then, that I learned that on Sunday one of C4P’s bloggers took it upon himself to congratulate me for being one of those “with the courage to criticise [sic] those whose lives seem committed to a downward spiral of abusive tabloideeze about all things Palin.”

Why, sir! I do believe that you’re trying to coopt me!

The blog post, “Skinny White Sunday: Alaska Palm Pilot Rocks!” by Rich Crowther [Ref #2], was a sort of Sunday wrap-up of Palin-related news, which in this case included discussion of Phil Munger’s use of the word “slut,” for which I had criticized him. [Ref #3] Interestingly, Crowther said very little about my criticism of Phil, instead choosing to highlight comments I’d made at Phil’s post about Gryphen of Immoral Minority.  Also of interest was that while Crowther made use of the term Steve Aufrecht used in his post criticizing Phil for the same thing — Blogger Tourettes [Ref #4] — Crowther not only didn’t credit him, but even linked to another C4P post (critical of Phil) instead of to Steve’s post. [Ref #5] I’m sure there are a number of C4Pers who now think Crowther is oh-so-very-clever for coining a clever phrase that in fact he just snagged uncredited from another Alaska progressive blogger.

Here’s the relevant section of Crowther’s post.  All the stuff in green is him quoting me.  Links are as they appear in the original.

Mr M has recently been struck down by a bad case of Blogger Tourettes and the issue of the week over at his blog has been “to swear or not to swear”. Is it nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of Sarah Palin’s outrageous good fortune, or to cuss with aggressive, sexually charged, misogynistic language in trying to oppose that?

They accuse C4P of meddling in Alaskan affairs, but here’s what we don’t understand, how can it be more acceptable for those Eurozone sludgers Patrick Hogwash and Regina la Cochon Rose (at Palingates) to involve themselves in matters Alaska? How can it be appropriate to link to that bilious European blog? Huh?

Interestingly, reader, there are now some Alaska Bloggers (eg Mel@Henkimaa) with the courage to criticise those whose lives seem committed to a downward spiral of abusive tabloideeze about all things Palin:

“[I] think that Gryphen frequently goes over the top & over the line, especially with regard to Palin. (But not only with regard to her. For example, I was pretty sickened by his post a week or so ago about Lesil McGuire & Tom Anderson’s divorce.)”

“I’m not a Trig Truther — I have better things to do with my time than to scrutinize photos of her to see how big her ‘baby bump was’…”

“I don’t care if Gryphen is more worried about this than I am; my concern is mainly where his (or anyone else’s) interest might have a negative impact on the life of innocent people. (As with the more recent ‘Track Truther’ rumor, which questions the facts of Track’s parentage — never mind the impact such reckless rumor-mongering might have on the lives of Track or the family of the supposed ‘real’ father. I think it’s Palingates where I’ve seen this stuff.)”

“I think that Doogan was wrong for outing her [Jeanne Devon]. I think the language Jeanne has used to cut him down is frequently insulting, but not as deeply so as Phil’s slut slur. I think that a lot of Alaska progressive bloggers are just participating in the general level of political incivility that is part of the general culture now.”

“I do have a problem with personal attack & demeaning insult… On that basis too I have lots of problems with Immoral Minority. I have often felt that Gryphen is so caught up in his dislike of Palin that he goes overboard in seeking out things to criticize her about, even on slow Palin news days. I often feel he goes over the top & over the line.”

“Gryphen’s blog, to my eyes, is one of the biggest offenders in the ‘gratuitous insult’ & ‘criticize for the sake of criticism’ category that the Alaska lefty blogosphere has to offer.”

The person who wrote all that is no admirer of C4P, far from it, but she is certainly the first liberal blogger in Alaska to address openly and honestly the very real problems which some of the leftist bloggers have – not least in the way in which they have been supporting those reaching beyond decency in their sometimes color-blind desperation to build a conspiracy… any conspiracy. [Ref #2]

I appreciate that Mr. Crowther was kind enough to point out that I’m “no admirer of C4P, far from it,” and also to recognize that I’m a she, not a he (since I sign a lot of posts with my nickname Mel, some people erroneously assume that I’m male).  But I also noticed that Mr. Crowther was very careful to take my comments out of their context, particularly to omit anything I said that was critical of Palin or her followers, even if it was part of the same sentence or comment that he elected to quote, or complimentary to any Alaska progressive blogger.   Since Mr. Crowther never linked to the post where my comments were made, it also made it that much more difficult for any C4P reader to check the quotes & place them in context. The result is to give a very unbalanced representation of my views — perhaps in tribute to that favorite news source of conservatives, Fox News: fairly unbalanced.

So here I am to restore the balance of what I was saying.

The most egregious example was Mr. Crowther’s first quotation of my words:

“[I] think that Gryphen frequently goes over the top & over the line, especially with regard to Palin. (But not only with regard to her. For example, I was pretty sickened by his post a week or so ago about Lesil McGuire & Tom Anderson’s divorce.)”

“I’m not a Trig Truther — I have better things to do with my time than to scrutinize photos of her to see how big her ‘baby bump was’…”

“I don’t care if Gryphen is more worried about this than I am; my concern is mainly where his (or anyone else’s) interest might have a negative impact on the life of innocent people. (As with the more recent ‘Track Truther’ rumor, which questions the facts of Track’s parentage — never mind the impact such reckless rumor-mongering might have on the lives of Track or the family of the supposed ‘real’ father. I think it’s Palingates where I’ve seen this stuff.)” [Ref #2]

Here, typos and all, i’s the portion of my comment on “PA’s Palin Poll – Another Critical View by Another Close Friend” [Ref #6](which was a crosspost of Steve Aufrecht’s post “Blogger Tourettes”) from which Mr. Crowther was selectively quoting.  (Note: all the quotes Mr. Crowther made of my words were from my comments to that same post.):

You ask,

Do you support “Gryphen” (Jesse Griffin) (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/)? Have you read his stuff? What do you think? He may be hung up about Palin’s child’s birth certificate. What do you think about Palin’s kid’s birth certificate? Do you think the birth certificate is a fraud?

I answered about Immoral Minority in my comment immediately prior to your comment. Yes, I read it. Sometimes I appreciate it. Sometimes I don’t. As I said above, I think that Gryphen frequently goes over the top & over the line, especially with regard to Palin. (But not only with regard to her. For example, I was pretty sickened by his post a week or so ago about Lesil McGuire & Tom Anderson’s divorce.)

As for Palin’s kid’s birth certificate — how would I know if it’s a fraud? I’ve never seen it, nor has anyone that I know, since Palin has never released it. It would be nice if she would, because then maybe it would put to rest all the Trig Truther stuff. That she hasn’t released it might indicates that either

(1) she thinks it’s nobody’s business, even though she’s brought Trig & the manner of his birth so much into the public spotlight that she’s made it other people’s business; and/or

(2) she for some reason thinks it serves her interests to keep the Trig Truther rumors alive by not putthing a quash to them once & for all with a disclosure of the birth certificate; and/or

(3) one or more of the claims she has circulated about Trig & the circumstances of his birth is a lie.

Maybe all three. I’m not a Trig Truther — I have better things to do with my time than to scrutinize photos of her to see how big her “baby bump was” — but her tale of the long plane rides from Texas to Anchorage after her water broke certainly seems suspect. And if true, certainly demonstrates her irresponsibility.

I don’t care if Gryphen is more worried about this than I am; my concern is mainly where his (or anyone else’s) interest might have a negative impact on the life of innocent people. (As with the more recent “Track Truther” rumor, which questions the facts of Track’s parentage — never mind the impact such reckless rumormongering might have on the lives of Track or the family of the supposed “real” father. I think it’s Palingates where I’ve seen this stuff.) [Ref #6, comment at 6:24 PM]

Notice how Mr. Crowther carefully leaves out the context of my criticism of Palin’s own behavior with regard to Trig, including the famous account of the “my water broke & then I endangered the life of my child by taking a long journey from Texas so my child could be born in Alaska” airplane trips. And then even a drive from Anchorage to Wasilla.  Oh please.  Notice how he makes me seem even more critical of Gryphen than I am by omitting what I say about sometimes appreciating his blog.

From the same comment at Progressive Alaska, Mr. Crowther quotes this:

“I think that Doogan was wrong for outing her [Jeanne Devon]. I think the language Jeanne has used to cut him down is frequently insulting, but not as deeply so as Phil’s slut slur. I think that a lot of Alaska progressive bloggers are just participating in the general level of political incivility that is part of the general culture now.” [Ref #2]

The full context of that portion of the comment:

What about Devon cutting down Mike Doogan, over and over again, for identifying her?

I think that Doogan was wrong for outing her. I think the language Jeanne has used to cut him down is frequently insulting, but not as deeply so as Phil’s slut slur. I think that a lot of Alaska progressive bloggers are just participating in the general level of political incivility that is part of the general culture now. I think I’ve done so at times myself, & I’m trying to do better. But I also think the incivility & attack language is routinely far worse & more virulent on the right. I’m still appalled that Palin nominated to be attorney general someone like Wayne Anthony Ross, who has a long history of demeaning the personhood of people with whom he disagrees.

But that’s just the humble opinion of a “lima bean.” [Ref #6, comment at 6:24 PM]

Alaskans might remember that during a confirmation hearing before the Alaska House Judiciary Committee, Wayne Anthony Ross compared lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual/transgender Alaskans to “lima beans,” a vegetable he “hates” but would still “represent” if he was hired to be the advocate for “United Vegetable Growers.” [Ref #7] That’s on top of other slurs he’s used, not only against LGBT Alaskans [Ref #8] but also against victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, as I detailed in a letter I wrote to members of the Alaska Legislature last April. [Ref #9] But, gotta make sure that Palin supporters don’t see any of my criticism of Palin’s disastrous & embarrassing choice of WAR — embarrassing especially because the Alaska Legislature resoundingly rejected her poor choice for attorney general [Ref #10] — not exactly a high point for Palin’s record as governor of Alaska. Better not remind Palin fans of that, or anything else I said that might remind them of embarrassing truths about Palin — which may well be one reason that Mr. Crowther didn’t link to the post where my comments were originally made.

Y’think?

Mr. Crowther also chose to ignore my later comment, in which I retracted & corrected the error I made in describing Jeanne Devon’s posts about Alaska State Representative Mike Doogan:

On the other item — Jeanne Devon of the Mudflats coming down on Doogan for removing her anonymity — I’ve got to revise my earlier answer.

Earlier I wrote that “I think that Doogan was wrong for outing her. I think the language Jeanne has used to cut him down is frequently insulting, but not as deeply so as Phil’s slut slur.” Now, having gone through her blog for stuff she’s said about Doogan, I must correct myself to say that I only once found her actually “insulting” him, but not directly. To the extent she did so, it was in reporting on the fact that Doogan was among those legislators whose name was apprearing on little flags put in dog poo in Juneau, such that he had attained the nickname “Doo Doo Doogan.” I.e., she was reporting on an insult others had dreamed up, not originating it. Mudflats is actually one of my favorite blogs to read, because Jeanne is witty & creative in her writing; & seldom if ever lowers herself to engage in ad hominem attacks.

I’ve met her only a couple of times, once at the True Diversity Dinner where she took my picture with Brian the Moose. It hasn’t appeared on her blog though. [Ref #6, comment at 11:48 PM]

Jeanne wrote me privately to thank me for making the correction, & also told me where she had in fact posted the pic of me with Brian the Moose (about halfway down: I’m the one in orange between Republican Gomorrah author Max Blumenthal and Air America’s Richard Green).  Could Mr. Crowther’s ignoring this have anything to do maybe possibly perhaps maybe have something to do with the fact that Palin fans also don’t like Jeanne, whose blog The Mudflats is one of the principal blogs that brought the attention of non-Alaskans to what a dangerously unqualified candidate Palin was for vice president?  How nice to be able to coopt the comments of a liberal blogger like me to put her down!  How inconvenient that I later corrected my incorrect remarks!  How convenient for Mr. Crowther that all he had to do to keep most C4P readers ignorant of my correction was by simply not mentioning it!

Mr. Crowther next quoted from the very first comment I made that mentioned Gryphen:

“I do have a problem with personal attack & demeaning insult… On that basis too I have lots of problems with Immoral Minority. I have often felt that Gryphen is so caught up in his dislike of Palin that he goes overboard in seeking out things to criticize her about, even on slow Palin news days. I often feel he goes over the top & over the line.” [Ref #2]

My full comment:

Anonymous @ 3:40 PM asked,

I wonder if those who are complaining about Phil’s poll also take the same critical look at blogs such as The Immoral Minority where the criticism of Palin runs along the same lines and I see plenty of expletives and worse.

I don’t have a problem with expletives exactly (the f-word for example, which I occasionally use myself); I do have a problem with personal attack & demeaning insult — which is the main basis upon which I criticized of Phil’s poll. On that basis too I have lots of problems with Immoral Minority. I have often felt that Gryphen is so caught up in his dislike of Palin that he goes overboard in seeking out things to criticize her about, even on slow Palin news days. I often feel he goes over the top & over the line.

Your other examples (Keith Olbermann, Jesse Jackson, MLK, Kennedy) all involved personal private relationships that (1) I don’t know enough about to judge & (2) had nothing to do with any of those people’s presentations in public discourse. You’re comparing apples & oranges. I do look unfavorably on people abusing their power in sexual relationships & also when they violate their agreements (such as vows of fidelity) with their partners or spouses. But it’s up to the people they have those agreements with to hold them accountable, not me — since I don’t know exactly what their agreements were; nor do I know whether or not whatever Olbermann did actually violated the consent of any of his sexual partners.

Obviously Phil has no obligation to explain anything unless he really wants to. Seems like Phil wants to. Isn’t that what he just said in crossposting this? [Ref #6, comment at 4:12 PM]

In this case, Mr. Crowther’s selective quote served to leave out my the qualification of what I was criticizing Phil for, or the fact that I don’t really give that much of a shit about expletives.  (See? I just used one.)  But this wasn’t as bad a selective quotation as some of his others.

Mr. Crowther’s final quote of my words:

“Gryphen’s blog, to my eyes, is one of the biggest offenders in the ‘gratuitous insult’ & ‘criticize for the sake of criticism’ category that the Alaska lefty blogosphere has to offer.” [Ref #2]

What I said in that comment in full, in which I was replying to an anonymous conservative commenter who took exception to me saying that despite my criticisms of Gryphen’s blog, I still liked him & read his blog:

Anon @ 10:08 AM –

“Be it known that while I think he frequently goes over the top & over the line on his blog, I still like him & I still read his blog — I just wince a lot.”

Translation for non-leftists.” This guy says stuff I would find hateful and vile on right-wing sites but because he’s one of ours I’ll go along with it.”

For the Left, convictions mean nothing and the end always justifies the means.

I guess you haven’t been reading, Anon. I’ve been calling loudly & persistently ever since Phil posted his “slut” remarks & poll for progressive bloggers to refrain from demeaning insults, & to stop excusing their use of them by the hypocritical justification that “the right does it so we can too.”

Gryphen’s blog, to my eyes, is one of the biggest offenders in the “gratuitous insult” & “criticize for the sake of criticism” category that the Alaska lefty blogosphere has to offer.

But that doesn’t, nor has it ever, meant that I have tossed him on the garbage heap. He’s like a brother whose uglier language I abhor. But however much I abhor his language, that doesn’t’ mean he ceases from being my brother. Same for Phil.

But back to the question of hypocrisy: I have said a number of times that lefties are behind hypocritical when they justify their incivility & ugly language against righties because “the right does it to us.”

Unsurprisingly, almost all of the right wing commenters who have commented on this issue on Phil’s blog over the past few days, including you, are using the same hypocritical strategy: you continually show up, usually in anonymous guise, to gripe at lefties for being uncivil & using “hateful and vile” language, while never once condemning the hateful & vile language from your own side.

So rail as much as you like, but your arguments will continue to have no merit until you stop behaving with such hypocrisy. [Ref #6, comment on February 11 at 10:37 AM]

Better not let C4P readers know that I was also criticizing rightwingers for their “hateful and vile” language — which, in fact, occurs with some frequency in comments at C4P.

In fact, the post Mr. Crowther linked to when he borrowed Steve Aufrecht’s term “Blogger Tourettes” without so much as mentioning Steve was to his own February 6 post critical of Phil’s first post where he referred to Palin as a “slut.”  Comments on that post were rife with “hateful and vile” language.  And also a commenter called Kjanlady suggesting,

Kjanlady: Can we get his address and post it on the web….along with a picture of him, his house, and the car he drives? ) [Ref #5, comment 02/08/2010, 09:26:54]

Though I credit two other commenters, the first a couple of hours after the suggestion was made, the other by Rich Crowther himself the following day, for saying no to this idea –

section9: No. We don’t do that crap. Much as we’d like to, Philip Munger is a pathetic assclown who, despite his efforts to destroy Sarah Palin, is a private citizen. [Ref #5, comment 02/08/2010, 11:20:51]

Rich : I have the impression that Kjan. is probably making a sarcastic reference to the way in which Palingates published personal information about two former C4P contributors recently.

For the record, Mr Munger is a private citizen whose privacy must be respected.

My post sought to challenge his use of language as a blogger. Implicit in that is the hope that he might re-think his approach to blog posting, and be less deliberately inflammatory when he next writes critically about Governor Palin. [Ref #5, comment 02/09/2010, 01:26:31; emphasis added)

But, for the record, not before someone apparently decided to take Kjanlady up on her suggestion, as reported by Phil shortly after she made it.  (Though of course no one has actual proof that the men taking photos of Phil's house & car were C4P readers, because they skedaddled on out of there as soon as they realized Phil had seen them.)

None of this is to say that Rich Crowther or anyone else at C4P is wrong for calling upon Phil or Gryphen on anyone else to be less inflammatory when they write about Palin, or about anyone else.  But notice how seldom they call upon their own side to use less inflammatory language.  Same hypocrisy I was decrying throughout the discussion of civility.  As, for example, when I wrote last week,

It’s clear that just as much on the left as on the right, too many people are willing to excuse their “own side” for employing the same tactics that they condemn the “other side” for. [Ref #3]

Same hypocrisy I was decrying when I wrote — in that last comment Mr. Crowther selectively quoted from –

But back to the question of hypocrisy: I have said a number of times that lefties are behind hypocritical when they justify their incivility & ugly language against righties because “the right does it to us.”

Unsurprisingly, almost all of the right wing commenters who have commented on this issue on Phil’s blog over the past few days, including you, are using the same hypocritical strategy: you continually show up, usually in anonymous guise, to gripe at lefties for being uncivil & using “hateful and vile” language, while never once condemning the hateful & vile language from your own side.

So rail as much as you like, but your arguments will continue to have no merit until you stop behaving with such hypocrisy. [Ref #6, comment on February 11 at 10:37 AM]

That, in particular, is a message that Mr. Crowther’s selective quoting of my comments left out.

Now, since I don’t typically read C4P, it’s possible that I have missed such condemnation from Mr. Crowther or other conservative bloggers there of the hateful & vile language that so often comes out of the mouths or keyboards of C4P readers and other conservatives & Palin fans.  If so, please point them out to me in comments, & I will stand corrected.  I ask that you please refrain from namecalling as you do so.

Meantime, I’ve got to say that it turns out there’s a whole lot of work to restore fairness & balance to the record when C4P writes about one in laudatory terms.  I wonder if Rich Crowther will still think I have “courage” after he’s read this post.  It’s nice to be called courageous, sure, but even better is to be coopted represented honestly and in context.

References

1. 7/7/2009. “The 2 million dollar meme” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
2. 2/14/2010.  “Skinny White Sunday: Alaska Palm Pilot Rocks!” by Rich Crowther (Conservatives for Palin).
3. 2/8/2010. “Progressive bloggers on Palin: Civility versus namecalling” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
4. 2/10/2010. “Blogger Tourettes” by Steve Aufrecht (What Do I Know?); crossposted as “PA’s Palin Poll – Another Critical View by Another Close Friend” at Progressive Alaska.
5. 2/6/2010. “Foul Mouthed Alaska Democrat In New Low” by Rich Crowther (Conservatives for Palin).
6. 2/10/2010. “PA’s Palin Poll – Another Critical View by Another Close Friend” — crosspost at Progressive Alaska of Steve Aufrecht’s post “Blogger Tourettes”.
7. 4/14/2009. “Anti-WAR letter: Opposing Wayne Anthony Ross” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
8. 4/15/2009. “WAR’s antigay letter to the Alaska Bar Association, 1993″ by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
9. 4/16/2009. “WAR goes down! 23 yeas, 35 nays!” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
10. 2/8/2010. “Midwinter Snow Pictures – and a Comment on C4P Meddling – Updated” by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).

Related posts:

1. Conservatives for Palin: A rich field of study for anyone interested in the practical application of intellectual dishonesty & logical fallacy
2. Progressive bloggers on Palin: Civility versus namecalling
3. Progressives, civility, & Palin: Anatomy of an apology

meme. n.  A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. [Ref #1]

That’s the definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition.  The topmost collection of definitions, posted at the Urban Dictionary in 2003 by a user called Emme, provide some additional help in understanding the term, which was coined by the biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene:

1 :  an idea, belief or belief system, or pattern of behavior that spreads throughout a culture either vertically by cultural inheritance (as by parents to children) or horizontally by cultural acquisition (as by peers, information media, and entertainment media)
2 :  a pervasive thought or thought pattern that replicates itself via cultural means; a parasitic code, a virus of the mind especially contagious to children and the impressionable
3 :  the fundamental unit of information, analogous to the gene in emerging evolutionary theory of culture….
4 :  in blogspeak, an idea that is spread from blog to blog
5 :  an internet information generator, especially of random or contentless information [Ref #2]

One might add this definition: an idea that is fed by a less than truthful politician to a lazy mainstream media, which is uncritically transmitted to the public when the true facts are readily available & have even been reported on already — sometimes even by the same media source as the one now  passing on the prevaricating politician’s false information.

Case in point: from Sarah Palin’s July 3 resignation speech:

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap – the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game. [Ref #3]

There’s actually a number of errors of fact in this brief passage of Palin’s speech, but this post will be long enough if I focus  on the one I’ve emphasized: Palin’s claim that $2,000,000 taxpayer (or rather, oil revenue dollars — this is Alaska, after all) have been spent on responding to ethical complaints against Palin.

Problem?  Just two days before, on July 1, the Anchorage Daily News, the Juneau Empire, and the Associated Press all reported on figures released by the Alaska Personnel Board about the actual costs of its investigations into ethical complaints against Palin & members of her administration. The costs were considerably less than what Palin claims: $296,042.58. [Ref #4, 5, 6, 7] Big difference.  Here’s what that difference looks like:

What’s more, nearly two-thirds of that amount was attributable in no small part to an ethics case Palin filed against herself.  As explained by Patrick Forey in his Juneau Empire story,

[T]he timing, scope and other factors of the single largest expense appear to fit the case Palin filed against herself that cost $187,797 to investigate. That’s almost two-thirds of the total $296,042 of all Personnel Board investigations in the last two years.

The self-reported complaint was a means to have a legislative investigator’s findings in the “Troopergate” case reexamined by a Personnel Board investigator. She said publicly that her self-reported complaint was without merit. [Ref #6]

Without merit, huh? Do I hear the word frivolous?

Well, not exactly frivolous.  Palin had serious reason to file an ethics complaint against herself: it was her attempt to forestall, & ultimately to negate the “guilty of ethics violations” verdict of, the legislative Troopergate investigation conducted by investigator Stephen Branchflower. As Forey reports:

The Legislative Council, chaired by then-Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, had budgeted $100,000 for its independent investigation of Troopergate. Legislative investigator Stephen Branchflower concluded Palin abused her authority when she waged a campaign against a state trooper with whom she had a family dispute, but found she had the legitimate power to fire former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan who failed to take action against the trooper.

Branchflower’s report came out Oct. 10, 2008, in the heat of a bitter presidential campaign. Then, Palin filed her complaint against herself on Troopergate with the Personnel Board. Its report, done by the Personnel Board-hired counsel Tim Petumenos, cleared Palin and came out the evening before the election. [Ref #6]

This chronology is not entirely accurate: in fact Palin filed her self-complaint on September 1, 2008, more than a month before Branchflower’s report was released. (The Wikipedia article has a partial account of the Troopergate scandal — partial because it fails as of this writing to discuss reaction or consequences of the ethics investigations. [Ref #8]) A comparison of the Branchflower & Petumenos reports on Troopergate are beyond the scope of my energy or this post; suffice it to say that I’ve read both (follow the links & you can do so, too [Ref #9, 10]), & find Petumenos’ report to be weak & pitiable.  Andrew Halcro summed it up well at the time:

There appears to be a lot wrong with the report conducted by Personnel Board Investigator Tim Petumenos when compared to the Branchflower report and many questions remain unanswered.

* Conflicts in evidence that he missed or disregarded
* Misapprehension of the law
* Witnesses he never spoke with directly and whose credibility he could not have assessed
* Evidence he ignored
* An acceptance of statements by the Governor uncritically
* An unsupportable application of the legal standard of “probable cause”
* The failure to consider the evidence in the aggregate
* The failure to even acknowledge, let along evaluate, the circumstantial evidence (e.g., eight individuals all doing and saying the same thing, oftentimes in exactly the same words, 35 times over 18 months, permits a reasonable inference of direction and coordination) [Ref # 11]

The Anchorage Daily News has more on the differences between the two reports. [Ref #12]; editorially, the newspaper also found much to doubt in Petumenos’ version. [Ref #13] Be that as it may, Palin has consistently ignored the findings of the Branchflower report, & accepted the inadequate Petumenos report, released the day before the presidential election that saw the McCain/Palin ticket’s loss to Obama/Biden, as completely exonerating her.  Besides bad press, the principal results of the Troopergate investigations were that 10 witnesses, including Palin’s husband Todd, were found in contempt by the Alaska Senate in February 2009 for failing initially to respond to Branchflower’s subpoenas the previous September [Ref #14]; and a few days later Palin’s attorney general Talis Colberg was forced to resign for having counseled the 10 to ignore the subpoenas [Ref #15].

Back to the numbers: Petumenos’ investigation of Palin’s complaint against herself, with which two other Troopergate-related complaints were combined (one by the Public Safety Employees’ Association alleging improper access of Trooper Michael Wooten’s personnel & worker’s comp files and attempting to engineer his firing; a second by fired Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan seeking a public hearing in order to clear his name & restore his reputation), took up nearly two-thirds of total expenditures made by the Alaska Personnel Board in responding to ethics complaints in FY 2008-2009 against Palin (note: the Alaska state fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30).  Here’s the complete breakdown:

And here’s what it looks like visually:

(Click through on any of these figures to get to my Flickr photostream, where they can also be viewed full-size.)

In other words, not only is Palin’s figure of $2 million for the ethics investigations a wild exaggeration, but turns out that nearly two-thirds of the “THOUSANDS OF HOURS” in “frivolous” ethics complaints were “wasted” by Palin’s complaint against herself. [Ref #5, 6]

Complaints by persons other than Palin against Palin cost only $108,294.66.  That’s a far cry from $2 million.

But why can’t we tell which costs went with which other cases?  Sean Cockerham explains why in his Anchorage Daily News story:

The newly released expense list doesn’t specify the nature of each case listed. It only provides internal case numbers followed by the total expenses incurred for each one of the cases. The board won’t say which case numbers correspond with which complaint, or provide a detailed breakdown of the expenses. Under state law, ethics complaints are secret unless the subject of the complaint waives privacy. [Ref #5]

However,

It is possible to deduce which expenses could correspond with some of the known ethics complaints filed against the governor.

The chronology of the expense list suggests that the second most expensive case, which cost $43,028, could be a complaint filed by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod. McLeod contended Palin and some of her staff members used their influence to get a Palin supporter a job in state government. [Ref #5]

That case, also investigated by Petumenos, found Palin innocent of any ethical wrongdoing, but Petumenos recommended that Palin aide Frank Bailey be given ethics training because of some questionable emails. [Ref #5] (This is the same Frank Bailey who was suspended with pay for two weeks for some questionable behavior in the Troopergate affair. [Ref #8])  Andree McLeod herself speculated that the cost of investigating her complaint might be attributable to the fact that Palin was on the vice presidential campaign trail at the time, resulting in high travel costs for Petumenos to interview her — something also affecting Petumenos’ Troopergate investigation.  As explained by Sean Cockerham,

McLeod said her complaint might not have been so costly to the state had Palin not been traveling around the country on the vice-presidential campaign trail.

Petumenos travelled to St. Louis to interview Palin at least about the Troopergate allegations. McLeod said she understood that Petumenos also raised her allegations in that same interview.

“They had to go down and follow her all over the ends of the Earth to get her deposed,” McLeod said. “Sarah Palin is costing the state a hell of a lot more than just this amount.” [Ref #5]

Cockerham went on to speculate:

The third most costly one, which was listed at $29,962, could be a complaint made against Palin for having the state pay for her children’s travel. Palin ended up settling that complaint by agreeing to reimburse the state about $8,000 for several trips. [Ref #5]

If Cockerham is correct in that speculation, that would mean that the state paid a net total of nearly $22,000 to “dismiss” an ethics complaint against Palin that never would have come up had Palin not inappropriately claimed her children’s travel expenses as “state business” and charged the state for them. The resolution of this particular complaint was not, in fact, a “dismissal”: it was a settlement agreement agreed upon between Palin and — guess who? — Timothy Petumenos.  As reported in the Anchorage Daily News by Lisa Demer,

So was she exonerated?

“To be exonerated suggests a hearing on the merits and a conclusion. That was not what happened here,” Petumenos said.

As Petumenos described it, the governor agreed not to contest certain charges. He agreed not to file a formal accusation or take the case to a hearing. [Ref #16]

Not exactly the “dismissal” Palin has claimed it to represent.

What about other ethics complaints? Of the known complaints compiled in an Associated Press checklist published on June 21, 2009, I’ve already discussed five (# 4, 5, & 6: the three Troopergate complaints; #2: Andree McLeod’s August 6, 2008 complaint; and #8: the Travelgate complaint). I’ve also discussed #1 on the list, the Troopergate investigation conducted by Stephen Branchflower which in fact found Palin guilty of ethical violations — but Palin, as always, ignores this one. #7 was a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission, which found no jurisdiction (& is certainly not a State of Alaska agency).  #3 was filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission. [Ref #17]

All the rest were filed with the Alaska Personnel Board.  There are one or two still pending; of the rest, all are claimed by Palin as “frivolous.”  Certainly one of them was:

12. Jan. 12: Complaint alleging interference in a job hiring was filed under the name of Edna Birch, a busybody character on the British soap opera Emmerdale. Palin’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said no one by that name could be found living in Alaska and the filer refused to use a real name, so the complaint was dismissed Feb. 20. [Ref #17]

But it’s hard to say with the others.  I wouldn’t be the first to notice that there’s something of a conflict of interest in a personnel board comprising three appointees who serve at the governor’s pleasure ruling on ethical complaints against that selfsame governor.  Nor are any of the facts or findings on those cases — other than the bare facts of them being dismissed — available to the public.  We have only Palin’s word — reliable or not — against that of whomever lodged the complaints that they were “frivolous.”  I don’t have time to look into them all for this post — but you can betcha I’m not going to trust Palin’s word alone.  Not after having found so many factual errors already in what she claims about the costs to the State of Alaska of these complaints; whether the Travelgate case fit her characterization as a “dismissal”; & whether Petumenos’ Troopergate report truly exonerated her of ethical violations, in contradiction to Branchflower’s findings.

One more matter about these costs: I’ve mostly been talking about the report of costs to the State of Alaska as found in the Alaska Personnel Board’s report of costs.  But there are still one or two Personnel Board cases pending, and two of the three completed cases were with state agencies other than the Personnel Board: the legislative Troopergate case (#1 on the Associated Press checklist) and the APOC case (#2).  Could those cases make up the difference between $296,000 and $2 million?  According to Pat Forgey ‘s Juneau Empire article, the Alaska Legislative Council budgeted $100,000 for the Branchflower investigation [Ref #6]: if used in full (sorry, no time to look up the final cost tonight), that would bring state costs to $396,000.  It’s very difficult to believe that the APOC case and the one or two remaining Personnel Board cases could cost $1,604,000.  It’s quite clear that Palin’s numbers are way out of whack.

Oh, and by the way — contrary to Palin’s speech of resignation, in which she claimed

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice.” [Ref #3]

– every complainant identified in the Associated Press checklist who filed their complaint with an Alaska state agency, except for the obviously bogus Edna Birch, was an Alaska resident. [Ref #17]

So: where did Palin come up with the number $2 million?

I reckon she pulled it out of thin air, or an air thickened perhaps by the sense of persecution she seems to feel over these ethics complaints.  The furthest I’ve so far traced it back to is a Office of the Governor press release from June 23, 2009 (announcing the dismissal of case #14 in the Associated Press checklist), which asserts,

In the past two years, the state of Alaska has spent millions of dollars processing ethics complaints, public records requests, and related lawsuits. [Ref #18]

This claim was pretty quickly picked up by Phil Munger of Progressive Alaska:

I suspect that statement is complete bullshit. Millions of dollars means from $2,000,000.00 on up, if I am correct. [Ref #19]

A little more than a week later, on July 2 — the day before Palin announced her resignation, but also a day after the Alaska Personnel Board had released its figures — Steve of What Do I Know? picked up the story, pointing out that Sean Cockerham’s story — while helpfully explicating the figures — failed to mention the discrepancy between Palin’s “million of dollars” claim and the actual costs:

It seems to me that the most significant part of this story is the gap between the Palin allegation last week and the actual cost of the complaints. Deducting the Troopergate costs – which resulted from Palin filing a complaint against herself so that the friendlier Personnel Board would review it instead of a Legislative Committee – the cost of complaints was down almost to $100,000. [Ref #20]

But Steve also noted,

OK, the press release adds in public records searches, but the way they figure those charges is also grossly inflated and seems to be aimed at preventing people from gaining access to public records. At best it would still leave a huge magnitude of error. [Ref #20]

Steve’s link was to a prior post of his, in which he did the math on the Palin Administration’s bill of $65,000 for a public records request by Linda Kellen Biegel of Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis, & finds the Palin Administration to be arithmetically deficient. [Ref #21, 22] Linda, not having $65,000 lying around to gain the Palin Administration’s fabled “transparency,” modified her records request. The new price-tag: $5552.64 [Ref #23] — funds which Linda shortly began to raise. [Ref #24] An interesting fact about this particular records request: it relates to attacks by two local media luminaries — rightwing talk radio host Eddie Burke and Anchorage Daily News reporter Sheila Toomey, who authors the weekly political gossip column “Alaska Ear” — and their ties to the Palin Administration, specifically in relationship to what appear to be coordinated attacks by Burke & Toomey on Andree McLeod, who is responsible for a number of the ethics complaints against Palin.  As Linda writes,

[B]oth [Burke and Toomey] seemed to be participating in a coordinated smear campaign of citizen watchdog Andree McLeod. Both received inside information from the Administration that they discussed in their respective mediums. Both made claims that they were receiving/had received documents from requesting records of the State. Knowing how it works and knowing the timing required, that seemed highly unlikely if not impossible.

So, I did my own records request(s) looking to see what kind of communication between the Palin Administration and these media figures was actually going on. [Ref #23]

The point of this is that public records requests don’t, in fact, cost the State of Alaska anything, because the State recovers the costs to provide those public records through fees. Pretty exorbitant fees, too.  Unless — if Linda’s speculations are correct — those public records are requested by certain media figures with close ties to the Palin Administration who perhaps just shoot a couple of emails Palin & co.’s way, & perhaps get copies of the requested public records — for free?  It’ll be interesting to see what Linda’s public records request turns up.

Meanwhile, so much for the Palin press release claim that some of the fabled $2 million in costs to the State come from public records requests.  Not at the rates the State, under Palin, is charging.  And thus, another untruth in Palin’s lakefront speech:

And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game. [Ref #3]

Seems to me that I took $20 out of my own pocket, & a whole lot of other people donated even more, to help Linda raise the funds for that public records request.  It costs us considerably more than a dime, Gov. Palin.

Having already read Steve’s and Phil’s blog posts on the matter, I was alert when Palin repeated her 2 million dollar fabrication during her lakefront resignation speech. I was alert when I began to see the 2 million dollar meme repeated uncritically, first on July 4 by reporter Don Hunter in the very same newspaper — the Anchorage Daily News — where Hunter’s colleague Sean Cockerham on July 1 had reported the true costs of the ethics complaints. [Ref #25] And then, more alarmingly, when I began to see the meme reported in national mainstream media sources like the New York Times [Ref #26] and the Wall Street Journal, which reported,

Over recent months, [Palin's] tenure has been marked by sparring with local bloggers and other citizen activists in the state, some of whom bombarded her office with public-records requests. In all, Gov. Palin has faced 16 ethics inquiries of one sort or another in Alaska since last year.

All but one have since been resolved. Still, they appear to have weighed on the Republican governor in the days before her decision, announced Friday, to hand over the reins to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. Mr. Parnell said on “Fox News Sunday” that her decision was primarily prompted by her concern over $2 million a year the state has spent on records requests and the ethics inquiries.

“I think she used the word ‘insane’ in describing those costs,” he said. [Ref #27]

And so we come back to my addition to the definition of meme: an idea that is fed by a less than truthful politician to a lazy mainstream media, which is uncritically transmitted to the public when the true facts are readily available & have even been reported on already — sometimes even by the same media source as the one now  passing on the prevaricating politician’s false information.

But strange — the politician the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are acting as stenographers to is not, this time, Sarah Palin.  It’s Palin’s successor, the man who is supposed to take the oath of office as Governor of Alaska on July 26 in Fairbanks: Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.  Both stories give as the source for their uncritical repetitions of the $2 million dollar lie a statement Parnell made on Fox News Sunday. As recounted with dismay by Phil Munger in Progressive Alaska on July 6:

The most distressing statement Parnell made in the FAUX News interview, was his repeat of this Palin lie: “… and the fact that it was, uh, costing just about $2,000,000.00 of the state taxpayers’ dollars just to fund the staff, uh, to deal with the records requests and the like, and that was, uh, just over-the-top, uh, and I think she used the word “insane” in her, in her, uh, remarks.” [Ref #28]

We’ve learned in the past few days that Parnell, when he assumes the office of governor, plans to continue the policies laid down by his predecessor.

Tell me, Mr. Parnell: does that include the policy of the lie?

Addendum

Just after posting this, I discovered that among the Anchorage Daily News stories posted late last night (well, tonight actually — but before midnight, whereas now it’s past 3:00 AM) was one by Sean Cockerham with new words from Palin about the ethics complaints.  I was glad it was by Sean Cockerham: I knew he wouldn’t forget the real cost of the complaints.  But turns out Palin has a new explanation for her $2 million figure. Worth a lengthy quote; empasis added:

The governor repeatedly returned to the subject of ethics complaints filed against her during her 10-minute interview with the Daily News, saying she spent “most of my day, and my staff, most of their day and the department of law, a lot of their day on the frivolity.”

There have been 18 known ethics complaints filed against her. The governor’s office said they’ve been dismissed so far with no finding of wrongdoing, although she did settle a complaint over state-paid travel for her children.

The state personnel board put its cost of dealing with the complaints at about $300,000 — around two-thirds of which was in addressing the “Troopergate” issue last fall. Palin herself initiated the personnel board investigation on “Troopergate,” saying that the state Legislature’s investigation of the matter was politicized and she was seeking the appropriate venue to deal with it.

Palin said Monday she didn’t view the cost as just the $300,000 for the personnel board — but rather $2 million for the state. It is a figure her administration now uses — not meant to be actual checks written by the state but to also reflect time of state employees.

It is a per-hour calculation that the Palin administration put together, involving time spent by state lawyers deciding which public information to release as a result of all public records requests, time spent by governor’s office staffers responding to media inquiries about ethics complaints, and time technicians spend on retrieving requested e-mail, among other things.

Palin, asked why she allowed the ethics complaints to consume her so much, said she did not take the complaints personally, and that for her it was about state resources being spent on attacks that followed her run last fall as the Republican vice presidential nominee.

“That huge waste that we have seen with the countless, countless hours that state staff is spending on these frivolous ethics violations and the millions of dollars that Alaskans are spending, that money not going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research,” Palin said. [Ref #29]

A hearty thank you to ADN reader WatchingU, who rebutted with the following comment at the ADN website this morning at 2:50:19 AM (on about page 4 of reader comments):

Two Million: It is a figure her administration now uses — not meant to be actual checks written by the state but to also reflect time of state employees.**

Liar liar pants on fire. The ethics complaints are dealt with by the personnel board who are not paid except per diem, they don’t have regular meetings and don’t work a normal schedule,l they have outside jobs, the lawyers hired to investigate are not state employees, and their fees are outlined in the personnel board costs, her lawyer is not a state employee, does not use state time and since the constant statement is that these are frivolous complaints they should not need excessive investigation to be so quickly dismissed as the Governor often brags.

Record requests and email requests have charges associated with them. It is not done for free, and the charges are outrageous. The time associated with doing these things is more than adequately compensated for by the fee’s charged. [Ref #29 reader comments]

Glad I included above the discussion of the hefty fees charged for public records requests, too.  Tip o’ the nib to you, WatchingU, for paying attention, & catching Palin out on this latest rationalization.

See also the related story by Richard Mauer discussing Palin critics’ defense of their use of public records requests & the Alaska ethics complaint system:

But two of Palin’s more prolific critics say that public records laws and the ethics complaint process were used by them as designed — as a way for citizens to watchdog their government and keep abuses in check. [Ref #30]

The “prolific critics” mentioned are Andree McLeod and Linda Kellen Biegel (Celtic Diva). Tip o’ the nib to both of you, too: thanks for all your work to keep Alaska government as honest as we can make it.

Related posts

There’s several of them: follow the tag Palin ethics complaints.

References

1. “meme.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. <Dictionary.com>. Accessed 6 Jul 2009.
2. “meme.” Urban Dictionary. Accessed 6 Jul 2009.
3. 7/3/09. “Transcript of Palin’s speech” by Sarah Palin (Anchorage Daily News). Sarah Palin’s July 3, 2009 speech of resignation as governor of Alaska.
4. 7/1/09. “Troopergate looks to have dominated state costs for ethics complaints” by Sean Cockerham (Alaska Politics blog at ADN.com, 8:43 am).
5. 7/1/09. “Ethics investigations cost state $296,000 — FEES: Troopergate cost almost two-thirds of the total” by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
6. 7/1/09. “State spent nearly $300K investigating Palin ethics complaints: Most expensive investigation may have been driven by Palin herself” by Patrick Forgey (Juneau Empire).
7. 7/1/09. “State of Alaska logs $296,000 probing Palin complaints” by the Associated Press (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner).
8. 7/7/09. “Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal” (Wikipedia). Accessed 7/7/09.
9. 10/10/08. Report to the Legislative Council, Volume One: Public Report by Stephen Branchflower (Alaska Legislative Council).
10. 11/3/08. In re Ethics Complaint dated September 1, 2008: Report of Findings and Recommendations by Timothy Petumenos (Alaska Personnel Board).
11. 11/8/08. “Troopergate: The final words?” by Andrew Halcro (AndrewHalcro.com).
12. 11/8/2008. “Is this the end of troopergate? Opposing conclusions from investigators leave no clear path to resolution” by Megan Holland and Lisa Demer (Anchorage Daily News).
13. 11/7/08. “Our View: Taking Palin’s side — Petumenos’ report gives her strong benefit of the doubt” (Anchorage Daily News [editorial]).
14. 2/6/09. “Senate finds ten in contempt over Troopergate subpoenas — TODD PALIN, OTHERS: No punishment urged in troopergate matter” by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
15. 2/10/09. “Colberg resigns amid legislative pressure over ‘Troopergate’: Palin cites ‘harsh political environment’ as reason for abrupt exit” by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
16. 2/24/09. “Palin to reimburse state for family travel — $6,800: She admits no wrongdoing but will pay for a few of her kids’ trips” by Lisa Demer (Anchorage Daily News).
17. 6/21/09. “Ethics complaints filed against Palin” by the Associated Press (Anchorage Daily News).
18. 6/23/09. “Fifteenth Ethics Complaint Dismissed” (Office of the Governor, State of Alaska). Press release No. 19-155.
19. 6/23/09. “Saradise Lost – Book 2 – Chapter 68 — Palin’s Biggest Lie Yet?” by Philip Munger (Progressive Alaska).  Commenter LisanTX theorized, “She does seem to confuse amounts SHE spent with amounts the state spent and make references to them interchangeably.”
20. 7/2/09. “Catching Palin’s Numbers” by Steve (What Do I Know?).
21. 5/31/09. “How much is $54.84 * 16?” by Steve (What Do I Know?).
22. 5/22/09. “Palin’s transparency-for-sale: At what cost? For this Alaska resident, about $65,000…” by Linda Kellen Biegel (Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis).
23. 6/15/09. “And the final amount for getting the Palin Administration to cough up public documents is…” by Linda Kellen Biegel (Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis). The punchline: $5552.64.
24. 6/19/09. “Help shine a light on the Palin Administration–FAQs about this fundraiser” by Linda Kellen Biegel (Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis).
25. 7/4/09. “Palin’s career has been one surprise after another —’MAVERICK’: GOP’s bright light became target of complaints and allegations” by Don Hunter (Anchorage Daily News).
26. 7/5/09. “Legal Bills Swayed Palin, Official Says” (New York Times)
27. 7/6/09. “Growing Criticism at Home Took Toll on Palin” by Jim Carlton (Wall Street Journal).
28. 7/6/09. “Sean Parnell, the Suckup Buttercup, Disses Alaska’s Senior Senator, and Repeats Palin’s Biggest Whopper from Last Week – What a Way to Start, Sean!” by Philip Munger (Progressive Alaska).
29. 7/6/09. “Palin says ethics inquiries were paralyzing — INTERVIEW: Governor says she resigned because of frivolous complaints” by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
30. 7/6/09. “Palin critics defend their actions — COMPLAINTS: Public records laws were used as designed, they say” by Richard Mauer (Anchorage Daily News).

Related posts:

1. The nearly 2 million dollar spreadsheet
2. Palin's $2 million ethics meme in context
3. The Palinocracy has spoken