Blog integrity

Blog integrity matters to me. I don’t want to post anything untrue. When I get a fact wrong, I want to be corrected, so I can post an update and offer an apology. (I’m speaking for myself, but I believe that everyone who posts here has the same ethic and in fact have demonstrated that commitment to truth here.)

In November, I posted an entry about a Sarah Palin story that had been reported in the mainstream media. I’ve learned that it was this post that led to our blog brother Michael opting to end his participation here. Specifically, it's my understanding that he felt he couldn't participate in a blog that perpetrated a falsehood and perpetuated it in the face of the truth. I, for one, miss Michael here and would like to coax him back. I don't think I committed the ethical violation he thinks I did.

Let’s start with the underlying facts about that Sarah Palin story. (I know, I know... it feels like such ancient history.)

Actually, there were two mainstream media stories on the topic. First, there was Story A. On Nov. 5, 2008, Fox News and others reported that according to unnamed sources within the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin did not know that South Africa was a country and that she didn’t know which countries were part of NAFTA.

Story B came out a few days later stating that Martin Eisenstadt was the source for Story A.

Then, on Nov. 10, the news came that Martin Eisenstadt was a prankster; he had no connection to the McCain campaign. This meant that Story B was a hoax. In some news accounts, the distinction between stories A and B was blurred, giving the impression that Story A had also been proved a hoax, whereas really only Story B was disproved by the revelation of Eisenstadt’s true identity. Fox still stands by Story A: they have sources, still unnamed who are not Martin Eisenstadt, who claim Sarah Palin didn’t know the countries in NAFTA.

Now, turning to my blog entry about the story...

On Nov. 5, I posted this
entry:


This is phrased in an “if this is true” construction. Set that aside for the moment (I’ll come back to it) and take the post as a pronouncement of the truth of the story. On post date, Nov. 5, I had no reason to believe it wasn’t accurate; there had been no reporting counter to it. And I don’t think anyone thinks it wasn’t OK to post it the day I posted it.

In the following days, when the Eisenstadt hoax was perpetrated and uncovered, the news stories were fuzzy. It wasn’t clear to me then whether the hoax was limited to Story B (the identity of the sources) or if Story A was also a hoax. Michael’s interpretation was that Story A was a hoax.

On Nov. 11, Michael posted on it, citing Hot Air.

Michael also commented on my post, wondering if we could agree that my post should be retracted and quoted this text:

He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country._On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him “somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness.” He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”—her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.

Michael provided no link to this. The quoted source, “Biegun”, wasn’t familiar to me and the text included no explanation of who he was. Given the absence of background info, I admit I didn’t pay any attention to it. That was an error on my part and I apologize. In preparing this post, I Googled the text from Michael’s comment to see if I could determine where it came from and I learned that it came from a National Review story and that Steve Biegun was involved with briefing Palin during the campaign.

So there was and there remains a discrepancy between professional media reports: a) Fox has two unnamed sources that say Story A is true; and b) National Review has a named, credible (as far as I know) source that says that Story A is not true. What’s an amateur blogger to do with such a situation?

Sure, one should be skeptical of unnamed sources. Someone may be lying or they may have misinterpreted something Palin said during debate prep. (Of course, the Watergate story was revealed by unnamed sources while others who were on the record lied to cover the story up.) It’s also possible that all the sources are telling the truth and both Fox and National Review are correct; maybe Biegun didn’t converse with Palin on these topics until after the unnamed sources had had a first discussion with her about them during which she learned some things.

Given the muddiness of the situation, I don’t think I had an ethical obligation to update or retract my post about the Palin Story A (and I did not post on Story B, so had nothing to correct in that regard). I’m open to input from my blog brothers on this, though. If we have a rule that we need to post on every competing version of stories we post about, I think we may have a lot of remedial blogging to do.

Yet another issue raised by my post is one of construction. I framed my post with an if-this-is-true format. It was a hedge, because I had some skepticism about whether it could be true. Michael made the case, using a hyperbolic example, that couching a post in an “if it’s true that...” construction doesn’t cure the post of being unethical if the “that” is untrue. I think he's generally right about that; and I agree that correction is warranted when it turns out to not be true. I do think, though, that hypothetical questions (that are by definition in an “if true” format and typically conjure something not true or not proven) are useful in finding the limits of others’ positions.

Bailin' on Palin?

Kathleen Parker abandons Palin.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

and

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

and

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

Anyone else ready to jump Palin's ship after seeing the Couric interview?

Foreign policy cred

Watch CBS Videos Online

Update: Here's the transcript for your parsing pleasure:
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

Ezra Klein at Prospect asks two questions: Has there ever been a national politician this incoherent? And how has the McCain campaign organization not helped her memorize a better answer to the Russia question?

And to Anonymous who thinks Couric asked this difficult question because Palin's a woman and Couric is sexist: you're kidding right? Couric asked this question because Palin herself previously cited proximity to Russia as a foreign policy credential. Had Palin ever said "I haven't dealt yet with foreign policy issues" then she wouldn't have been asked this difficult question. It's difficult to answer because the premise is ridiculous.

Palin's house - Updated

If we're going to give pixels to the Ayers-wrote-Obama's-memoir nonsense, then we should give pixels to this, which strikes me as more plausable than memoir-gate.

The writer speculates that Palin got her house built for less than the going rate by the same contractors who were building the Wasilla Sports Complex. Key points that raise suspicions:
1) the house was built just a mile from the Complex;
2) the house was built at the same time as the Complex;
3) Seems like slightly odd timing for the Palin's to take on the expense of the new house, with her time as mayor coming to an end;
4) Mayor Palin got rid of requirements for building permits in time for there to be no records of building activities on her house (as Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeenient!");
5) I think I understood a reporter from the Village Voice on Oberman to say he tracked down the contractors on the Complex project and the main one said he helped Todd build the house (I may have misheard that, though, so I'm not sure I got that right).

Update: And of course, it's not just speculation that labor wandered over to help with Palin's house, it's that materials found their way to Palin's house. Oh, and the contractor mentioned in #5 was Steven's contractor.

Alaska isn't like the other 49

Alaska has no state income tax. A huge chunk of the state's money comes from taxes on oil/gas. Here's the 2007 Revenue Sources Book from the Alaska Dept of Revenue.

From The Boston Globe:

She may have fired the governor's chef and sold the state jet, but Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has also presided over a dramatic increase in state spending in the last two years.

Still, she can accurately claim that her state is in good fiscal health, thanks to an explosion of revenues from state taxes on oil industry profits.

Indeed, in her 20 months in office, Palin's toughest financial decisions involved dickering with the Legislature on creative ways to spend and salt away the billions of dollars in oil revenues pouring into the state treasury.

At times, Palin has been more economic populist than small-government conservative, partly because of Alaska's unique government financing system.

With no statewide income or sales tax, Alaska funds about 90 percent of the state budget from royalties and taxes on oil producers. Soaring oil prices and a higher windfall oil profits tax - an increase pushed through by Palin, now the Republican vice presidential nominee - have state coffers overflowing with petrodollars. The Alaska oil industry calculates that its annual payments to the state doubled in a single year to $10.2 billion.

Until a few years ago, the state government struggled financially for years because of low oil prices. But that's all changed. In the first two budget years under Palin, the state government has stashed almost $6 billion of surplus revenues in various reserve and savings accounts in anticipation of future drops in the price of oil. And the state has allocated another $4 billion over two years for a laundry list of new capital projects, mostly small grants initiated in budget requests by legislators for their districts.

And Alaska residents are getting their cut. Starting this week, every Alaskan who has lived in the state more than a year will receive $1,200 from the state, a total of about $756 million in rebates to offset high energy costs in the 49th state. That's on top of the perennial check each will receive from the state's oil revenue-endowed Permanent Fund, this year a record $2,069 per resident. The large Palin family is eligible to receive more than $19,000 from the combined payments.

So my question to Michael was, how do you know she's a fiscal conservative, given the odd nature of Alaska's economy (or more precisely it's government revenue structure) What economic policies can she translate to the national level?

VDH on Peoria

From his blog:

...

Sophisticates would rather listen to the six-term Senator Biden suavely and masterfully mislead (on every thing from the legislative responsibilities of the Vice President and confusion about Article I of the Constitution to Hezbollah in Lebanon) than an honest and sincere Palin speak directly to the people. Everyone else would not.

So yes, Biden sounded the more impressive in terms of recall and facts, but it was the transitory experience of a mint that melts almost instantaneously—once you realize that almost all of the sweeping sweet assertions you just heard were, on reflection, simply untrue and so now gone and forgotten. The story today is an embarrassing fact-checking of Biden’s bombast to a far greater degree than is true of Palin’s assertions.

...

So the debate had the character of one of those 1940s “champ” fight movies, in which the deft, cocky and more refined puncher beats up—at the beginning—the nervous sweaty challenger with the far greater heart. A man with three decades in the Senate, who reminds us ad nauseam of where he was and what he has done almost every second, in theory should have easily won; but this simply did not happen, in part to Palin’s charisma and Biden’s pontifications and distortions.…

As the rounds wore on, Palin lost much of her nervousness, smiled, and came into her own as the voice of an outsider who was not impressed by the same old, same old DC smugness. And as she did punch back, Biden began losing his composure, sighing with occasional break-ins and interruptions.

The more data he cited (much of it, again, less than factual [e.g., Biden really did, as Palin noted, rule out coal-generated power; he really did once deprecate Obama’s Iraq suggestions as ill-founded and dangerous; and he really does wish to create a trillion dollars in new spending entitlements; and senior commanders really do think the tactics in Iraq, mutatis mutandis, are of enormous advantage in Afghanistan]), the less effective he became. He’s a good debater, but he ended up out-pointing Palin and still clearly losing.

...

I cannot think of any presidential or vice presidential candidate who talked—manner, accent, gesture—in an authentically Middle Class fashion, and did so unapologetically. Bill Clinton could do it, but it was a performance to be turned on and off as needed. She sounds like voices in America (I’m in rural Michigan as I write this); but compared to life in the DC/NY nexus, she sounds like she’s from Mars as well. Biden often looked like an anthropological grad student on a South Pacific island doing his field work, both intrigued and taken back by the quaint habits of the otherwise inferior natives. I almost thought in the fashion of John Kerry he would sigh “I can’t believe I’m losing to this…..”

If I could stop vomiting...

I could write a post telling you that Katherine Kersten is today peddling the myth of Sarah Palin as a gritty hero for ignoring the onset of labor to deliver her speech at that energy conference:

"We were at a national governors meeting on energy in Dallas when Sarah went into labor," said Lingle. "She handled it remarkably, and it's a great example of her talents and toughness. After the keynote speaker canceled at the last minute, Sarah stepped in. She gave an outstanding address on strategic energy policy. Then she boarded a plane back to Alaska to deliver."

Though Lingle didn't know it, Palin was aware this delivery would be different from her others. She would give birth to little Trig, who has Down syndrome. Palin's decision to give Trig life has become a rallying cry for social conservatives.

Kersten fails to recognize Palin's decision to risk Trig's life. Find one woman or one doctor or one commercial pilot who isn't appalled that Palin got on a plane under those conditions: 1) leaking amniotic fluid; 2) 43 or 44 years old; 3) a month early; 4) mild contractions; 5) Down syndrome (I've read they have greater health risks at delivery, but I don't know if that is true).

A further thought about Palin and the interview

As I said earlier, I don't begrudge Palin spouting memorized, campaign-provided answers to Gibson's questions, because I understand how the VP candidate's message has to jive with the presidential candidate's positions. The problem with Palin doing this, though, is that there was no period of years during which we got to hear what she really thinks about the issues, prior to her vice presidential run. Maybe this sounds like what I've said before, but I think it's a slightly different take. Do you Palin fans really not have any concerns about this? or are you optimistic that McCain will stay healthy long enough for Palin to learn her way around some foreign policy?

Scared

I know that no one's defending Palin on her stunning amendment views, but I just can't get over my horror, so I'll offer more on on the topic. This is A. Serwer writing at Tapped who says it better than I can:

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
This understanding of the First Amendment, not as freedom of speech, but as freedom of speech limited to me and those who share my political views, coupled with a freedom from criticism of those views, is the most frightening interpretation of the Constitution I've ever heard in my life. Those "attacks" from the MSM are protected under the Constitution, Palin's "right" to be "free" from such "attacks" (read: critical coverage) is most definitely not.

But this bizarre interpretation is at the core of the right's complaints about unfavorable media coverage. Rush Limbaugh typically invokes this "understanding" of the First Amendment when criticizing groups like Media Matters, accusing them of being "Stalinist" for recording his nationally broadcast programming and calling him out on inaccuracies or flagrant bigotries. In Limbaugh and Palin's minds, the First Amendment protects not only their speech but shields any criticism of said speech.

And as Ben Smith points out, the First Amendment exists to protect people from government, not the other way around, which is what makes Palin's interpretation of the Constitution so deeply alarming.

Palin's experience

This is In response to Anonymous' comment about why there wasn't outrage about RFK's lack of experience.

The concerns I have with Palin springing from Juneau to the VP job are:
1) she has no experience dealing with national or international issues; it's possible she hasn't even had any interest in national issues. There is no evidence that she has. We don't have any idea what thoughts she has on these issues. She's gungho about exploiting/ "developing" Alaska's national resources. That's it. That's all we know about what's in her head.
2) Her experience as governor is useful but there hasn't been enough of it to know whether she's doing a good job or to know what the consequences of her actions will be.
3) She hasn't been on the national scene long enough for people to be able to evaluate her. We'll have about 6 weeks from the time she does the Charlie Gibson farce-of-an-interview until election day, with early voting starting in some places in early October. You can't expect people to be comfortable with this woman being a heartbeat away.
4) She's perfectly qualified to do some version of the VP job. But that's not the issue to me; she needs to be ready to be President from the get-go. Every VP candidate should be, but it's all the more important when the Presidential candidate is so old.

RFK had held jobs in federal government and worked on national issues from the very early 1950's until his presidential run in 1968. Further, he was on the national scene that whole time; people were able to observe his high profile career.

Obama's resume is thin. But he's been on display for all to see and poke and kick for 19 months, his every move and word revealed. He's written a book on his thoughts on some of the big national issues. He taught U.S. Constitutional law for 12 years. He was interested enough in national issues to run for Senate. He served as a Senator for two years before Palin even became a governor. He's interested enough in national issues to run and run and run for President. Oh, and his undergrad degree from Columbia was in political science with emphasis in foreign affairs. We can safely conclude that he's spent gazillions of hours pondering national and international issues and has had conversations with oodles of experts on these topics while formulating policy plans.

I know, I know that mayors and governors have to make decisions and exercise executive authority in a way that Obama hasn't done in his legislative jobs. But it's possible to do that really really badly. I don't know enough yet about Palin to know whether she did a good job at these activities. I see signs it may not have gone so well. There's the sports complex that's mired in real estate litigation, there's potential abuse of power in firing people willy-nilly and spending state money to attend church events, there's questions about whether the pipeline deal is a good one.

Palin on the issues

I'm trying to find Gov. Palin's thoughts on the issues of national import (national security, foreign policy, immigration, trade) and I can't seem to find them, not even on the Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President website. She'll be one missed heartbeat away from owning these issues. And every night she'll be on call during McCain's Ambien-induced sleep.

Also, I'm interested in your thoughts on her dairy fiasco from a free-market perspective.

[Update: No? Nothing? I'll settle for this: evidence that she's spent 30 minutes of her life pondering national or international issues.]

Debate - My Take (and a little more)

Of course C and I watched and while we did, I was playing a Palin drinking game. I was drinking every time I heard "maverick", "you betcha", any time she substituted "ya" for "you". My overall impression was that she looked like she belonged up there and that was what she needed to do. No real gaffes, no goofs. As for Biden, of course his substance resonated more with me, but his goal was to be concise and not sexist, which he also accomplished. As was obvious by watching CNN and Fox afterwards, both sides thought their person was great and won. Some other thoughts:

1) I found it strange that she asked if she could call him Joe, but never did. What was the point of that?

2) I thought her winking at the camera was a bit much.

3) I hate when lawmakers get into Congress-speak, which Joe did, and when they mention other lawmakers by name and add the "my good friend", "my dear friend:, etc.
I also hate how they all talk about all the bills they have written. It's amazing how they all write all these bills, but none of them ever seem to get passed into law. They always forget to mention that part. Whenever they get into this, I just tune out.

4) I was surprised that none of the pundits, experts, hosts that I watched mentioned that Joe almost broke down talking about his dead/injured children. It was very obvious. I was watching CNN and they had these reaction meters with men and women voters in Ohio and during that portion, the women reaction was off the chart.

5) Perhaps it was my bias, but Joe was better at obviously not answering questions than she was. Perhaps that is just an experience thing. I was interested to see how each would answer what I thought was just a stupid question, about what their achilles heal was. Joe at least, through humor, acknowledged what Ifill mentioned about him, but only with a sentence or 2. Palin, as I had expected, didn't even come close to answering it.

6) The after debate talk was the usual - not sure what the point of watching it is. I guess on the very rare chance that someone will break ranks. Thankfully C and I will be on the road today to Arkansas, so I won't be able he hear the rightie radio hacks go overboard in their reviews. They'll paint Palin's performance as just below Lincoln or Reagan and paint Joe as the next coming of that loser Ross Perot had as his VP. And I predict that Rush will almost be giddy over her comment about not answering a question and her using the term "main-stream media". If you actually read the transcript of her not answering the question remark, she mangles the sentence, but you get the idea of what she was trying to say.

Bottom line: much more entertaining than McCain-Obama I, no gaffes, lots of statements to fact-check.

Troubled bridge over water

From Josh:

Actually, Congress put the kibosh on the Bridge to Nowhere back in November 2005. Since Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was then head of the Senate Appropriations Committee he was able to force a compromise in which the earmark for the bridge was killed but Alaska got to hold on to the money -- some $442 million of federal tax dollars.

Fast forward to November 2006. That's when Sarah Palin was running as a staunch supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere -- that is, after the feds had themselves already said 'No Thanks.'

In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. So by the time Palin got into office it was clear that not only was the first Bridge earmark killed but that Congress was not going to be ponying up any more money. That meant that Alaska was going to have to pick up the tab all on its own. So since she couldn't pay for it with the federal pork barrel, in September 2007, Palin officially halted the project which was then a state project since Congress had said 'Thanks. But no thanks' two years earlier.

She couldn't say 'No Thanks' because Congress had already said 'Forget It'.

Palin on life of the unborn

As described in the Fairbanks paper and elsewhere, Trig Palin was expected to be born May 18, 2008. In mid-April, Gov. Palin, age 44, traveled to an energy conference in Texas. On April 18, while in Texas, she began to leak amniotic fluid. She talked to her doctor on the phone and then got on a commercial flight to travel to Alaska, without seeing a doctor in Texas.

To recap: Her pregnancy was "at risk" by definition due to her age, this was a month before the baby was due, she was leaking amniotic fluid and she got on a plane without seeing a doctor.

I know how romantic the idea is of women popping out babies without making a fuss about it, but this was ridiculously irresponsible and showed no regard for the health and well-being of the baby. I think Trig had the moral right, if not a legal right, to get medical care in Texas. His little life was risked when she instead got on a long flight to Alaska. He was born a month early within hours of her landing in Alaska. Labor had to be induced, so something was amiss.

Why should we care? Couple reasons: 1) it's an example of her decision-making in the midst of a risk-filled situation; and 2) it's inconsistent or hypocritical to take a pro-life position (and trade on it for political purposes) and then be so cavalier about the health and well-being of viable Trig.

The Myths of Palin: Bridge and Jet

In response to Michael's question about what she's saying that isn't true: The WSJ:

But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

Regarding the jet sale: eventually someone (it wasn't Palin) brokered a deal for the sale of the jet. But it did not sell on eBay. In fact, I submit that putting it on eBay was a publicity stunt. How many $2.5 million jets sell on eBay, as opposed to more conventional channels. It wasn't a horrible idea she had; in fact, it was common practice for the State of Alaska to sell surplus stuff on eBay. But it didn't actually yield any result, so I give her no credit for this. She may be being careful about her language on the stump ("I put it on eBay"), but McCain keeps saying she sold it on eBay. It's myth-making.

[Update: link to jet story, though I find it hard to believe we haven't all read this.]

[Update II: She didn't tell Congress "Thanks, but no thanks." She told Congress "Thanks. I'll buy what I want to with this money."]

Palin: Fahrenheit 451

From Time:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Palin on oil taxes

How does Gov. Palin's advocacy for increased taxes on oil companies' profits square with free market principles? If you think Gov. Palin's windfall profits tax was good economic policy, then do you also think Obama's windfall profits tax is good economic policy?

Oil taxes

I think Anonymous was referring me to this at Beldar. Beldar is explaining the difference between the increased tax revenue that Gov. Palin got out of the oil companies and that proposed tax by Obama. Palin negotiated a higher rate on the extraction of a state-owned, depletable asset ("to recompense the state for its loss of a non-replaceable resource"). Obama proposes a tax on windfall profits.

OK. Interesting. Thanks for saying something. I had not appreciated that distinction.

So now I'm wondering why, from a free-market perspective, Palin's higher taxation is better. With a higher severance tax, the oil companies for sure have to pay higher taxes. With a windfall profits tax, they only have to pay if they're wildly ridiculously profitable. Isn't greater taxation of corporations a no-no to fiscal conservatives? Or are you thinking that it's different because with the higher severance tax, the cost gets added to the product and then consumption is reduced in response, and since we're trying to save energy, that's a good thing? But isn't that going to be true of the windfall profits tax too? Or is the objection that the windfall profits tax is too unpredictable for oil companies to do a good job of charging the tax through? Or is it that you view the severance tax as really just a sale price for an asset owned by Alaska, whereas the windfall profits tax would be redistribution of an asset owned by oil companies to all U.S. citizens and that is philosophically unacceptable? How about the fact that the U.S. subsidizes oil production?

Jet fuel

More on the jet story:

Moreover, because of the unique purchasing terms of the aircraft -- which required the state to make payments amounting to $20,000 per month even if the jet wasn't in use -- the decision not to hire a broker to help sell the property appears in hindsight to have been a costly mistake....By the time she was elected, there were many state items being offered on eBay. As the Anchorage Daily News reported on December 13, 2006, nine days after Palin took office and the day she announced the jet posting, the state was "auctioning 38 items on the site, including three aircraft -- two Super Cubs and a Cessna... Other items for sale included two sets of used helicopter floats ($300) and King Air exhaust stacks ($500)."

Back in 2003, the state sold an old ferry, The Bartlett, for $389,500. As Jones noted in a Daily News article at that time, "it [was] not usual for Alaska to sell big-ticket items on eBay because the site is cheap and has a big audience."

The state jet, in contrast, was not a good fit for eBay. Palin never actually sold the aircraft online (though, unlike John McCain, she never claimed that to be the case). But more important, while the jet sat unsold, Alaska was on the hook to pay $62,492.79 every three months as part of the initial purchasing deal.

Drudge Watch

Drudge is STILL pimping Obama's "my Muslim faith" as a slip. It's been up for at least 24 hours. He still, though, has no entry for Palin's Fannie/Freddie gaffe:

McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.