The truth about Ms. Palin is even more frightening than the legends surrounding her

I have read much about Ms. Palin and wanted to give her the benefit of a doubt — some of what has been said about her is true and some is urban legend.  BUT, the truth about Ms. Palin is even more frightening than the legends surrounding her time as both governor and mayor.  She fires people that disagree with her, she ignores science, and she manipulates the facts to fit her particular goals.  She is, quite frankly, potentially, one of the most frightening individuals I have seen in politics.  Much of the traits we dislike about President Bush are even more prevalent in Ms. Palin.  The following is an article from Salon.com which describes her “wolf hunting program in Alaska” — a program that ignores the science and to many hunters is just plain disgusting.  I say this as one who was brought up in a family of hunters —  people who hunted, in part, to feed themselves.  Ms. Palin believes in hunting for sport — hunting using high powered rifles from the air.  Even if one is a sports’ hunter, what is the sport in that?!?  I have spoken to my uncle, who is an avid hunter, and he is appalled by Ms. Palin’s wolf hunting program, as well as her polar bear hunting initiatives.  Below is an exerpt from Salon.com:

Her deadly wolf program

With a disdain for science that alarms wildlife experts, Sarah Palin continues to promote Alaska’s policy to gun down wolves from planes.

By Mark Benjamin

Sep. 08, 2008 | Wildlife activists thought they had seen the worst in 2003 when Frank Murkowski, then the Republican governor of Alaska, signed a bill ramping up state programs to gun down wild wolves from airplanes, inviting average citizens to participate. Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field.

But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski’s job at the end of 2006. She went one step, or paw, further. Palin didn’t think Alaskans should be allowed to chase wolves from aircraft and shoot them — they should be encouraged to do so. Palin’s administration put a bounty on wolves’ heads, or to be more precise, on their mitts.

In early 2007, Palin’s administration approved an initiative to pay a $150 bounty to hunters who killed a wolf from an airplane in certain areas, hacked off the left foreleg, and brought in the appendage. Ruling that the Palin administration didn’t have the authority to offer payments, a state judge quickly put a halt to them but not to the shooting of wolves from aircraft.

Detractors consider the airborne shootings a savage business, conducted under the euphemism “predator control.” The airplanes appear in the winter, so the wolves show up like targets in a video game, sprinting across the white canvas below. Critics believe the practice violates the ethics of hunting, while supporters say the process is not hunting at all, but a deliberate cull.

Palin has argued that she is worried about Alaska’s hunters, locked in perennial competition with the canine carnivores for the state’s prodigious ungulate population. A hunter herself, Palin has battled critics of aerial wolf hunting with the support of the Alaska Outdoor Council, a powerhouse advocacy and lobbying organization for hunting, fishing and recreation groups. In addition to so-called urban hunters, who shoot moose mostly for fun, Alaska is home to a significant number of subsistence hunters, including some of the Native population. Subsistence hunters rely on an occasional moose to make ends meet. The wolves, Palin has said, are stealing food from their tables.

“Palin acts like she has never met an animal she didn’t want shot,” says Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, based in Connecticut.

The controversy over Palin’s promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes. A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don’t even understand what wolves eat.

State officials stand by their scientific findings on predator control. “Several times over the past several years, our science has been challenged in court,” says Bruce Bartley, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “In every instance it has prevailed.”

Yet it is not hard to find Alaskans who say Palin’s enthusiasm for predator control fits a broader narrative of how she edits science to suit her personal views. She endorses the teaching of creationism in public schools and has questioned whether humans are responsible for global warming.

In 2007, she approved $400,000 to educate the public about the ecological success of shooting wolves and bears from the air. Some of the money went to create a pamphlet distributed in local newspapers, three weeks before the public was to vote on an initiative that would have curtailed aerial killing of wolves by private citizens. “The timing of the state’s propaganda on wolf control was terrible,” wrote the Anchorage Daily News on its editorial page.

“Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science,” says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. “In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way.” The initiative was defeated last month.

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. “On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective,” he says of Palin. “I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments,” he adds about the state’s rational for gunning down wolves. “In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary.”

Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state’s wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on “unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations.” As a result, the “inadequately designed predator control programs” threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate and wolf populations. The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears “on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters.”

Apparently Palin wasn’t fazed. Earlier this year she introduced state legislation that would further divorce the predator-control program from science. The legislation would transfer authority over the program from the state Department of Fish and Game to Alaska’s Board of Game, whose members are appointed by, well, Palin. Even some hunters were astounded by her power play.

The legislation would give Palin’s board “more leeway without any scientific input to do whatever the hell they basically wanted,” Mark Richards, co-chair of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, wrote in an e-mail. The legislation is currently stalled in the Alaska state Senate.

Predator control in Alaska dates back to the 1920s and 1930s. Even then, wildlife biologists insisted that wolves were important to the area’s natural ecology and not responsible for inordinate deaths of sheep, caribou or moose. Yet the scientists fought a losing battle against ranchers, hunters and state officials, who backed the extermination of tens of thousands of wolves. Aerial hunting began in earnest in the 1940s and continued through the 1960s after Alaska had earned statehood.

But starting in 2003, Murkowski opened the airborne shooting to citizens with special permits and expanded predator-control programs to cover 60,000 square miles of state and federal land, the largest wolf-killing operation since Alaska became a state. The stated goal is to reduce wolf populations in some areas by 60 to 80 percent. Teams of pilots and gunners have killed at least 795 wolves since 2003. Conservationists counter that the total number of wolves trapped, shot from airplanes, chased down by snow machines, and killed legally and illegally in Alaska every year is more along the lines of 2,000.

Scientists insist that the Palin administration is systematically killing wolves with an inadequate understanding of the relationship between the carnivore and hoofed animals. The state responds that predators kill over 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die each year, while hunters and trappers kill less than 10 percent.

Haber says the state’s numbers are wildly inflated. His decades of wolf research have shown that wolves are, in fact, mostly scavengers. “Sixty to 70 percent of the moose they eat are scavenged, not killed,” he says. He adds that the state’s wolf population estimates, based on secondhand observations and extrapolations, are also high.

Palin offered the $150 bounty for wolf paws in 2007 after efforts to kill wolves from airplanes that season were, in her view, coming up short. State officials had hoped that 382 to 664 wolves would be killed during that predator-control season. State officials were disappointed when only 115 wolves were killed from the air.

Palin thought the $150 cash bounties would do the trick. Haber has another explanation for the dry spell. “I can tell you from my own research that the reason they didn’t get many wolves in certain years, particularly last winter, is because they have scraped those areas clean,” he says.

Last year, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., introduced legislation designed to curtail predator-control programs, except as a last resort. “It’s time to ground Alaska’s illegal and inhumane air assault on wolves,” Miller said. Palin quickly fired off a curt letter in response, applauding the state’s programs as “widely recognized for their excellence and effectiveness.” She pointed out that her state has “managed its wildlife so that we still maintain abundant populations of all of our indigenous predators almost fifty years after statehood.”

Says Jans, co-sponsor of the losing initiative to outlaw aerial wolf hunting: “This is a reflection of a somebody who doesn’t have any use for science.”

 

 

— By Mark Benjamin

 

John McCain Crashed Five Jets

 

 

John McCain And The USS Forrestal Fire

 

 

 

 

 

 

USS Forrestal In 1967

 

 

 

 

 

 

132 Dead Sailors, And Countless Wounded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Small Rocket Hit A Fuel Tank On Another Plane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where Is The Truth Here?

I have heard five versions of the Forrestal fire, but this one makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCain Aviation Career

McCain crashed 5 jets, plus was responsible for the Forrestal fire. Something made the plane behind McCain fired a rocket, which hit McCain’s external center fuel tank, and caused a fire. McCain panicked, and dropped two bombs into the fire.
 

     

 

 

Did He Start The USS Forrestal Fire?

Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that McCain deliberately ‘wet-started’ his A-4E Skyhawk to shake up the guy in the F-4 Phantom behind his plane.

     

 

 

Incompetence Or A Stunt

‘Wet-starts’, done either deliberately (the starter motor switch allowed kerosene to pool in the engine and give a wet start) or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. ‘Wet starting’ was a common practice among young ‘hot-dog’ pilots.

     

 

 

Zuni Rockets Were Volatile Design

In McCain’s case, the ‘wet-start’ ‘cooked off’ and launched the M34 Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that punctured the Skyhawk’s fueltank, knocked the M-65 1000 lb bomb off it’s 500 lb rated mount, and touched off the explosions and massive fire.

 

     

 

 

 

The Carrier Oriskany

The USS Oriskany came along side to treat the wounded.
 

 

     

 

 

Wounded Flown Out

They were transferred to other ships.

 

     

 

 

McCain Left With The Wounded

When the carrier Oriskany came along side, and McCain was put in a chopper and whisked away. McCain was the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred

 

   
     

 

The Forrestal Crew

I have a hunch McCain left for his own safety, because the crew wanted blood.

 

   

 Source

 


 

If I Was Palin You’d Be Calling For My Impeachment


 

 
 
Gov. Ed Rendell decried a double standard in the treatment of Sarah Palin on Monday, saying that if it was he who was at the center of the “troopergate” investigation, the press would be calling for his head.
 
“She [claims to be] a reformer,” said the Pennsylvania Democrat. “And yet she is being investigated on the charge that she used her power as governor to fire someone who was going through a messy divorce with a relative of hers. Could you imagine if I was doing the same thing in Pennsylvania? You would be calling for my impeachment.”
 
The remarks came at the end of a long list of criticisms that Rendell, one of the foremost supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, launched against the Republican vice presidential nominee. Ignoring the directive of the Obama campaign to focus attentions on McCain, Rendell called out Palin on everything from ethics to earmarks. 
 
“[The McCain camp] has tried to again obscure the facts about Gov. Palin. ‘She is a reformer and against earmarks.’ No she isn’t, when she was mayor of that town she hired a lobbyist to get earmarks… ‘She was against the bridge to nowhere.’ No she wasn’t. She was for the bridge to nowhere first… She is a budget balancer. But she left the town in greater debt then when she became mayor, so she is not a budget balancer.”

 

“I like her,” Rendell concluded. “She is a good person, she has tremendous potential but in no way shape or form is she ready to be president of the United States.”
 
The Rendell call, organized to preempt a McCain appearance in Pennsylvania, was os tensibly on the topic of how the Arizona Republican has engaged in dirty politics when it came to discussing Obama’s tax record. And on this issue, Rendell was again in vintage outspoken form.
 
“First of all, let me say it should be embarrassing for the Republican ticket that Rick Davis, Sen. McCain’s campaign manager, said ‘this election is not about issues.’ Good lord, with all the challenges facing America it has to be about issues…They don’t want to talk about issues because when the truth comes out about issues the American people will favor Sen. Obama tremendously.”
 
The Republicans, he added, “would make the all time all-star team for spiders the way they can spin.”
But most questions, as has been the case since the Palin announcement, were focused on the Alaska governor.
 
Would she siphon of Clinton supporters in Pennsylvania? No, said Rendell, who expected Obama to receive somewhere along the lines of “95,96, or 97 percent of the vote.”
 
Was she qualified to serve as VP? Absolutely not, he bemoaned. 
 
The McCain camp argues that, “Governor Palin, because of her executive experience as a mayor of a small 9,000 person town and governor of Alaska for 20 months, has that experience. Well, I refer you to a McCain camp document they put out when [Virginia] Gov. Kaine was considered to be vice president. 
 
They attacked his experience and derided Richmond [where Kaine was formerly mayor] because it was the 105th largest city … I think Gov. Palin was mayor of the 50,000th [most populated] city in the America… It was fair game to say Gov. Kaine was not qualified because of his credentials. If they are going to be consistent then they believe that Gov. Palin is unqualified to be vice president.”