Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is appalling to me that after reading that article, the most upsetting thing any of you found to talk about is Sarah Palin. While I agree that she comes across as a bimbo on tv, I feel that she did a lot of good before being corrupted by politics and stupefied by the media. But as for the article, check this quote:
"Arizonans seem, for lack of a better word, a little more "civilized" than Alaskans in this regard. Other than that, though, they're the same strange mix of socialist common-sense conservatives with only slight differences. In Alaska, all the common-sense conservatives keep their lips firmly attached to the public teat."
I live in Oregon and won't technically be an Alaskan resident for thirteen months (we're moving up in a month), but this offended me anyway. I like to think of myself as a common-sense conservative because the republican and democratic parties are equally nonsensical, and every Alaskan friend I have would identify themselves in a similar fashion. Not one of them, nor myself are "firmly attached to the public teat." To suggest that the PFD is socialist is downright untrue, and borders on offensive. Alaskans pay more than 40 cents more per gallon than most lower 48 states and have to drive much more due to the sprawling nature of the state. My guess (though this is not backed by any study, only common sense) is that most Alaskans pay more than their PFD on the difference in price of gas, not to mention groceries, furniture... everything really.
Another quote:
"If an Alaska community tried to impose zoning of the type that exists by covenant in the subdivisions of Arizona, there would be rioting in the streets."
My in-laws live in a subdivision with covenants on the outskirts of Soldotna, and the subdivision before this one also had covenants, and that one was out in Kasilof. Plus, this article suggests that Alaskans have no pride in their homes, and that they could not fully comprehend a covenants manual.
"All grass, hedges, shrubs, vines and plants of any type on a Lot shall be irrigated, mowed, trimmed and cut at regular intervals so as to be maintained in a neat and attractive manner,'' the rules say. "No yard equipment, wood piles or storage areas may be maintained so as to be Visible From Neighboring Property or streets.''
All Alaskan covenants I know about mention having equipment visible to neighbors and passers-by. As for shrubs, look at the picture of Palins house; all that is there are cacti! I hope this simpleton from nowhere Alaska can keep those under control.
And lastly:
"The houses come with huge, walk-in closets for all the clothes and comfortable sit-down makeup tables."
Okay, this is just laughable. Size of closets and vanities have nothing to do with the state, but rather the preference of the homeowner. If anything, the property sizes in Alaska allow for larger homes; maybe the people of Alaska just aren't so vain and frivolous.
Alright, I have to apologize for the rant, but honestly people, anybody from Alaska should just be enraged about the assertions of the author of this article. Clearly, that person has never been to Alaska. I'll take a quaint cabin in Alaska over a sprawling estate in that desolate wasteland called Arizona any day.
It is appalling to me that after reading that article, the most upsetting thing any of you found to talk about is Sarah Palin. While I agree that she comes across as a bimbo on tv, I feel that she did a lot of good before being corrupted by politics and stupefied by the media. But as for the article, check this quote:
"Arizonans seem, for lack of a better word, a little more "civilized" than Alaskans in this regard. Other than that, though, they're the same strange mix of socialist common-sense conservatives with only slight differences. In Alaska, all the common-sense conservatives keep their lips firmly attached to the public teat."
I live in Oregon and won't technically be an Alaskan resident for thirteen months (we're moving up in a month), but this offended me anyway. I like to think of myself as a common-sense conservative because the republican and democratic parties are equally nonsensical, and every Alaskan friend I have would identify themselves in a similar fashion. Not one of them, nor myself are "firmly attached to the public teat." To suggest that the PFD is socialist is downright untrue, and borders on offensive. Alaskans pay more than 40 cents more per gallon than most lower 48 states and have to drive much more due to the sprawling nature of the state. My guess (though this is not backed by any study, only common sense) is that most Alaskans pay more than their PFD on the difference in price of gas, not to mention groceries, furniture... everything really.
Another quote:
"If an Alaska community tried to impose zoning of the type that exists by covenant in the subdivisions of Arizona, there would be rioting in the streets."
My in-laws live in a subdivision with covenants on the outskirts of Soldotna, and the subdivision before this one also had covenants, and that one was out in Kasilof. Plus, this article suggests that Alaskans have no pride in their homes, and that they could not fully comprehend a covenants manual.
"All grass, hedges, shrubs, vines and plants of any type on a Lot shall be irrigated, mowed, trimmed and cut at regular intervals so as to be maintained in a neat and attractive manner,'' the rules say. "No yard equipment, wood piles or storage areas may be maintained so as to be Visible From Neighboring Property or streets.''
All Alaskan covenants I know about mention having equipment visible to neighbors and passers-by. As for shrubs, look at the picture of Palins house; all that is there are cacti! I hope this simpleton from nowhere Alaska can keep those under control.
And lastly:
"The houses come with huge, walk-in closets for all the clothes and comfortable sit-down makeup tables."
Okay, this is just laughable. Size of closets and vanities have nothing to do with the state, but rather the preference of the homeowner. If anything, the property sizes in Alaska allow for larger homes; maybe the people of Alaska just aren't so vain and frivolous.
Alright, I have to apologize for the rant, but honestly people, anybody from Alaska should just be enraged about the assertions of the author of this article. Clearly, that person has never been to Alaska. I'll take a quaint cabin in Alaska over a sprawling estate in that desolate wasteland called Arizona any day.
She was gov. for about a year and half. She really accomplished nothing during her time. Kindly give some concrete examples of the "good" that you claim that she did.
She was corrupted by politics long before she ever saw the governor's office. Ever hear of a little place called Wasilla?
Quote:
All Alaskan covenants I know about mention having equipment visible to neighbors and passers-by.
LOL.
Really, it's no secret that Sarah Palin likes the sun; could be she's hard wired to need the Vitamin D. I certainly don't begrudge her a home in AZ.
But at the rate she's blowing through her PAC, she's likely to become like those lottery winners that are flat broke within five years of hitting it big.
Yes, the house is ostentatious; the Palins are very "new money". I'm almost embarrassed for them.
The article that you linked to wasn't the one I posted in my OP, by the way.
I don't find it offensive at all by anyone saying that the PFD borders on socialism...because it does. So do the roads that you drive on and the National Forests/Parks that you use for recreational purposes.
From the article you linked to
Quote:
The Alaska Constitution was written by a strange collection of old lefties and pragmatic businessmen who saw natural resources as the only capital available in the 49th state. Fearful of the way the territory of Alaska had essentially been run from Seattle by moneyed Outside interests, they wanted to make sure that the capital of the new state was tied up in such a way those folks couldn't get at it.
Exactly. And as it should be.
Quote:
If anything, the property sizes in Alaska allow for larger homes; maybe the people of Alaska just aren't so vain and frivolous.
The climate does not allow for larger homes, for the most part.
Quote:
Alaskans pay more than 40 cents more per gallon than most lower 48 states and have to drive much more due to the sprawling nature of the state.
I have a home in Oregon as well. I drive far less when I'm in Alaska. Outside of Anchorage and the other more populated areas of the state, Alaskans drive less than their counterparts in the lower 48. I pay far less for food, etc., and I have no property tax here. The gas prices here are very similar to the local Chevron station a couple of blocks away from my Oregon house.
The perm. fund was never meant as a charity payment to offset the supposed high cost of living in Alaska. It's purpose is so that the citizens of Alaska can benefit from the resources here and that falls within the classic definition of that nasty old word "socialism". Funny thing about that word....the majority of those using it these days don't have a clue as to what it really means.
And no, I'm not a "socialist", but I do think that some socialist aspects of government are better than the alternative.
Human beings are hard wired to be tribal creatures; that is how we survived during hunter/gatherer times. Had the social Darwinism that some preach today been widely practiced during our evolution...our species wouldn't exist today.
Personally, I'm a resident of the state of Oregon by choice even though I work in Alaska and spend most of my time here. It's a complicated thing and something I owe no one here an explanation for, but I'll admit to feeling a bit of a twinge a couple of years ago when I switched my residency. By the same token, the Cascades were my first love. My roots in both places are very deep and I'm secure enough in who I am that legal residency of a particular state doesn't have any bearing on my identity.
One thing you'll find when you move up here is that there are no hard and fast rules for Alaskans. They don't all feel a certain way just by virtue of being an Alaskan.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 05-29-2011 at 12:29 AM..
When I said she did some good, that is completely subjective. If you're a person that believes the government should be around only for providing services that require governance (i.e.- police, military, prisons, roads, utilities), she did some okay things. I'm not suggesting I would cast my vote for her for president because I simply don't know that much about her. Compared to President Obama, who is super-sizing government, I'd take just about anyone else, but then there are those who said that about President Bush. For this reason, I find it to be an exercise in futility to discuss politics (and religion that matter) with anyone other than like-minded individuals. For as a very wise man or woman (I don't know the origin of this quote) said, "For he who does not believe, no evidence is sufficient; for he who does, none is needed." That can be applied to politics and religion. The main point of my whole little diatribe there was that her abilities as governor were, first-of-all, not even mentioned in the article, and more importantly that the article was insulting to every Alaskan. It displayed the kind of ignorance that has led to massacres throughout history; a sheer lack of understanding toward the people who choose to live differently than the author. When the British annihilated the Native Americans, it was because they didn't understand their customs or religion and thought they knew better. So they tried to change them, and when that didn't work they killed them. Maybe that article was anecdotal to some, but to me it was indicative of the core of what is wrong with humanity, and at that point, I find it really hard to care if Mrs. Palin is a complete bimbo or if President Obama is a Muslim Communist (I don't believe either). Neither one of them are what's wrong with America; we are.
When I said she did some good, that is completely subjective. If you're a person that believes the government should be around only for providing services that require governance (i.e.- police, military, prisons, roads, utilities), she did some okay things. I'm not suggesting I would cast my vote for her for president because I simply don't know that much about her. Compared to President Obama, who is super-sizing government, I'd take just about anyone else, but then there are those who said that about President Bush. For this reason, I find it to be an exercise in futility to discuss politics (and religion that matter) with anyone other than like-minded individuals. For as a very wise man or woman (I don't know the origin of this quote) said, "For he who does not believe, no evidence is sufficient; for he who does, none is needed." That can be applied to politics and religion. The main point of my whole little diatribe there was that her abilities as governor were, first-of-all, not even mentioned in the article, and more importantly that the article was insulting to every Alaskan. It displayed the kind of ignorance that has led to massacres throughout history; a sheer lack of understanding toward the people who choose to live differently than the author. When the British annihilated the Native Americans, it was because they didn't understand their customs or religion and thought they knew better. So they tried to change them, and when that didn't work they killed them. Maybe that article was anecdotal to some, but to me it was indicative of the core of what is wrong with humanity, and at that point, I find it really hard to care if Mrs. Palin is a complete bimbo or if President Obama is a Muslim Communist (I don't believe either). Neither one of them are what's wrong with America; we are.
Of course it was subjective, because you don't know any specifics about her time as governor. Can you point out some of the "okay" things that she did as governor? Specifically? Just because she spouted some garbage about "small government" when she was running for VP hardly means that she put that into practice during her time here.
She talked the talk but didn't deliver. She could not even be bothered to show up for more than 15% of the legislative sessions. That's the real insult to all Alaskans.
Her abilities as governor weren't mentioned in the article because they never existed. Her only accomplishment during her short time here was to support and enact legislation that turned the North Slope into a ghost town.
She turned her back on our own people during the Yukon Delta crisis because she was too busy chasing cameras in the lower 48 to pay attention to state business.
There is only one good thing she ever did for the state.
I get the feeling we're referencing two separate things. The article you think I quoted, I never read because I don't recognize anything you put up. The article I referenced was the one the magical internet sent me to when I clicked the hyperlink in your original post. As for socialism, I do not identify with the modern version of it, though if you knew me at all, you'd know that I favor a socialistic society. It's the way Jesus taught us to live; those who have more are supposed to share with those who have less; that's my utopian society. But you don't know me any more than I know Sarah Palin, which is why it's wildly inappropriate for you to make personal attacks. I am not attacking you personally because I don't know you. What I know is what I read in that article. What I know is that the author was ignorant about Alaskans and made assertions that could be construed as offensive to some. I liken it to those that suggest that Southern Oregon is filled with ignorant, uneducated hillbillies. The judgment and cliques in this country have gotten ridiculous.
As for the things that I see to be accomplishments, you see as a detriment; I have seen the arguments back and forth on this forum already. I will mention them, for the sake of appeasing your curiosity about whether or not I have any idea about Alaska: the energy package that put money back in the hands of Alaskans (similar to dividends Oregonians used to get for timber), the co-op used between Departments of Revenue and Natural Resources respectively that was set up to ensure proper checks and balances of companies profiting from North Slope Resources, and my favorite, the selling of the governor's jet (talk about misappropriation of funds). How many flights can a person take commercially for $65,000+ per quarter? My saying that her doing good is subjective has nothing to do with my lack of examples, but rather the fact that examples that I see as good, you see as bad, therefore.... SUBJECTIVE. Her abilities as governor weren't mentioned in the article because the article was about real estate!
I didn't suggest that the PFD was a charity fund; what I said is that it doesn't come close to offsetting cost of living in Alaska. The main idea there is that Alaskans pay more for the resource that comes from their land than everybody else in the US does, therefore, the oil companies kicking back a little to offset that seems reasonable. I want to know where you buy gas and groceries in Oregon that costs more than Alaska because you're getting hosed, or you're just exaggerating for dramatic effect.
And as for the last part where you talk about being secure in your identity, I certainly hope you're not insinuating that I'm a confused little boy that doesn't understand the world. I'm not an idiot, nor am I uneducated. I've spent the last five years in college, while concurrently working full time. Both my major in college and my profession require me to be well-versed in economics, and honestly, when it comes to government, that's my ultimate concern. Alaska, economically, flourished under Sarah Palin's leadership. If you are one of those people that wants to declare that the subsequent economic collapse that happened under her successor is her fault, then I say to you that the American economy collapsed because of President Clinton, not President Bush. We both know that's not true of course; whether I like him or not, in terms of economics, President Clinton was the second best president we ever had (the best, of course, was President Jackson, who made us debt-free, but then we went back into debt after he left office). Point being: Alaska's economy was good with Mrs. Palin, and now it's bad. Another point that I see as noble, you see as bad: her absence from legislative sessions. Every successful CEO will tell you, the biggest waste of a company's money is having all of the highest paid individuals sitting around talking. We have amazing technology at our fingertips, and yet government officials still insist on sitting together in a room for months out of the year talking about what should be done. SEND A FRIGGIN' EMAIL!!! And then get it done. I think a leader that misses sessions to be in the field making things happen is a good leader. I'm sure you disagree. All of these examples shine a bright light on my point about not discussing politics with people. We don't have to agree. I apologize for offending you with my original response to your news link. I wrote what I felt and made the terrible assumption that I was pointing out something outrageous. Clearly you agree with the author that Alaskans are slobbish, ignorant, hillbilly, unruly, uneducated, backwards folks that couldn't make it in the lower 48 or pull their lips from the public teat. If you disagree with that, I'm failing to understand why you took issue with my original response. In that response there was one little blurb about politics; the rest was my defense of the Alaskan people and the way they choose to live. I'm still struggling to understand why that sent you into such a rage that you felt you needed to personally attack my intelligence, world view, and conceptual understanding of government and American history. I may not have been born in Alaska, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.
As for her "abandonment" of the people, I agree she could have handled the situation better for sure. However, I fail to find the difference between that and the Louisiana governor who WILLINGLY flooded multiple towns to prevent larger towns from flooding too heavily. Or President Bush finishing the book reading with the kids before addressing 9/11. Or President Obama waiting awhile before visiting Joplin. Or the administrative staff at Columbine fleeing to call for help while students were murdered. People in leadership have to do what they can for the majority. Sometimes that means doing things that seem unconscionable to the rest of us, and those people live with that forever. Mrs. Palin could have done better; I completely agree with you on that. But given the complexity and difficulty of that job, she could have done worse too. I'm going to bed now. I'm not sure why I argued this so fervently. Neither of us are in a position to make any of it better. I just don't like being personally attacked by people who don't know me just because I don't share their opinion.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,161,809 times
Reputation: 8105
There are many phony Christians, SityData. No one is a real Christian if they don't make some attempt to be Christ-like. One good rule of thumb is whether the person is in favor of foreign wars for ANY other reason than direct self-defense - not just in response to an act of terrorism, but for an actual buildup to war, or the launching of a nuclear weapon. The wars we're in are unnecessary in any way except to enhance the bottom line of defense contractors like Halliburton and GE.
Read the Sermon on the Mount to get an idea of what Jesus the Christ thought of war and violence in general.
That principle rules out George Bush #1 and #2, Obama, and Sarah Palin. They're simply not true Christians. I doubt that in the final race we will see either candidate as being a true Christian. If we choose to vote, the decision should be based on other grounds.
Sarah Palin is of about average intelligence. I think she'd be good at belonging to a PTA or being the president of a Home Owner's Association. She shouldn't be at the national level. We should only have highly intelligent, wise individuals of sterling character running for President.
There are many phony Christians, SityData. No one is a real Christian if they don't make some attempt to be Christ-like. One good rule of thumb is whether the person is in favor of foreign wars for ANY other reason than direct self-defense - not just in response to an act of terrorism, but for an actual buildup to war, or the launching of a nuclear weapon. The wars we're in are unnecessary in any way except to enhance the bottom line of defense contractors like Halliburton and GE.
Read the Sermon on the Mount to get an idea of what Jesus the Christ thought of war and violence in general.
That principle rules out George Bush #1 and #2, Obama, and Sarah Palin. They're simply not true Christians. I doubt that in the final race we will see either candidate as being a true Christian. If we choose to vote, the decision should be based on other grounds.
Sarah Palin is of about average intelligence. I think she'd be good at belonging to a PTA or being the president of a Home Owner's Association. She shouldn't be at the national level. We should only have highly intelligent, wise individuals of sterling character running for President.
In my opinion, this is a wonderful summation of how I feel. I fear I haven't acted very Christ-like tonight, and for that I owe everyone an apology. But you're absolutely right, and I agree with all of what you said, even that about Mrs. Palin. We need a great leader. While I think she did a few good things, she is a far cry from great. Thank you for your post.
There are many phony Christians, SityData. No one is a real Christian if they don't make some attempt to be Christ-like. One good rule of thumb is whether the person is in favor of foreign wars for ANY other reason than direct self-defense - not just in response to an act of terrorism, but for an actual buildup to war, or the launching of a nuclear weapon. The wars we're in are unnecessary in any way except to enhance the bottom line of defense contractors like Halliburton and GE.
Read the Sermon on the Mount to get an idea of what Jesus the Christ thought of war and violence in general.
That principle rules out George Bush #1 and #2, Obama, and Sarah Palin. They're simply not true Christians. I doubt that in the final race we will see either candidate as being a true Christian. If we choose to vote, the decision should be based on other grounds.
Sarah Palin is of about average intelligence. I think she'd be good at belonging to a PTA or being the president of a Home Owner's Association. She shouldn't be at the national level. We should only have highly intelligent, wise individuals of sterling character running for President.
We should only have highly intelligent individuals running for President? I disagree with you. What we need are leaders, and we have no leadership whatsoever at the moment. Pol Pot, and Hitler were very intelligent men, and leaders. Obama is supposed to be very intelligent, but leadership is what's needed the most to pull us out of the messes we have gotten into.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
