Didn't AP just run a story about it?

Personally, I'm not entirely sure how this bears on my opinion of a McCain presidency. I'd like more information about it, but this doesn't really alter my perception at all - I like McCain and am considering voting for him, but Sarah Palin as a candidate (Wasilla rape laws notwithstanding) is troublesome to me as I generally will not support pro-government conservatives that are value voters types. I find the story troublesome, but I didn't like the idea of a Palin presidency one bit (and this wouldn't necessariyl require McCain's failing health - she'd be the presumptive nominee after a hypothetical 8 years of McCain) in the first place, so even if all of this is true, it doesn't lower my opinion of her politically much (though personally, it would) as I tended to view her as a liability based on her "values voter" and divine right takes in the first place.


My point here is that I have no vested interest in this story being true or not - I just want to know what happened. From a relatively objective standpoint, the only contortions I see are Oreo's "rapes don't happen in small towns" absurdity and your posts, to a lesser degree. You're addressing such things as the file formats of the stories and the comments sections on websites. That is, you seem to be searching in violation of Ockham's Razor for any possible way to convince yourself that something you don't want to be true isn't true (website conspiracies, media conspiracies, etc). Even various conservatives that have weighed in here (Si Modo, Matt Larson, etc) have expressed concern over what appears to be a genuine iniquity that occurred, if perhaps varying degrees of thinking personal indictment toward Palin herself or toward McCain's candidacy.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Oh, trust me. That's one illusion I don't have.

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

I think its fare to think that would happen. but if the rape rate was extremely low in this town then it reduces the chances of this issue becoming common knowledge.

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

So you admit that this law becoming common knowledge would be damaging.

If there was an outcry from the towns people to change the law and she refused, then yes it would be extremely damaging.

btw was this LAW or SOP?

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

As to the first part, I haven't seen anything to indicate that there was an "outcry", per se. It appears that the state of Alaska began to exert pressure on her town to change the law.

As for SOP, I don't think so. The articles on the subject seemed to indicate that Wasilla was the only town with this law on the books, or at least one of the only ones, at the time in question. (Someone please correct me if I've misstated the info in the posted articles)

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It's hard to tell, but from that article in The Frontiersman (I bet they never expected being in the national spotlight), it seems they mentioned the town of Palmer as one with the same SOP.

Nah, no contortions, just what's known. It was hitting some of the majors yesterday as the day--and this thread--was ongoing. They are linked on this thread.

As for the NYT and other media, yesterday was Sept 11 and today Hurricane Ike ready to smash TX.

Plus, as the thread already established, the story is just still getting light as media is picking up on it.

You're smart enough to know all this. There's genuine looking for benefits of the doubt, additional information, etc, which is legitimate, and having an agenda to help someone guilty of wrongful conduct or omissions evade rightful accountability where it should exist, which is illegitimate, and especially so when it's over rape.

__________________

Should Have to? No, of course not, but then I've specifically worded my comments that none of these victims should Have to pay for the tests. If they can, presumeably via insurance but out-of-pocket is also possible, and agree to do so, why should they be legally precluded from doing so?


I agree, but the source citations for the topic have been very short on detail, and thus don't say that's what happened. Where most posters here have been filling in the blanks with 'worst case scenario', I've been filling it in with 'best case scenario'. Am I 'right'? I don't know. Are you 'wrong'? I don't know that either. Am I failing to both follow the crowd and jump to conclusions? Definitely.


If they agree to it, no, there's nothing wrong with it.

I expect there probably are some hard-core libertarian whack-jobs who do follow what you've described, but I'm not one of them. If you reread my posts, nowhere have I said the victims should be legally required to pay for the forensics - simply that they should not be legally required to Not do so.

Ah, I was thinking Objectivist was the term for the above approach, but wasn't sure and didn't want to offend any if I was mistaken. Nope, not objectivist, just libertarian.


True, if she were Required to pay for it, which I never advocated. If her deductible were already met, she was willing to pay the co-pay, and/or the city paid it for her such that her actual expense was either zero or some amount she could readily and voluntarily pay, where is the harm in saving the city X hundred dollars?

(Tho this admittedly also assumes some sort of group coverage or other situation where such a claim would not result in a rise in premium or some such.)

Ah - I finally came up with an appropriate parallel. An avid hunter's child goes missing. He already pays taxes for the police to address such things, right? Is it equally unconsciounable to ask if he might employ his bevy of bloodhounds, and/or friends with hounds and/or tracking skills, towards the effort of recovering the child? Or should he require the town to keep an appropriate slush fun around to hire them all to do so, since voluntary help is paramount to double taxation? If a victim has resources available to help solve a crime, be they dogs or insurance or whatever else, why is it so heinous for the authorities to ask them to help?

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Collection of evidence for criminal trial is the sole purview of the State. The product of the evidence collection does not belong to the victim, and expecting the victim to pay for it is unconscionable.

This isn't a case of "voluntary help" - the collection of evidence is the job of the State, and the State alone.

Matt

I still have not seen if this was a policy that was enforced, or, was it just "on the books"? Were any rape victims actually charged for the forensic kit?

__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson

I think it's irrelevant if it was enforced or not. The fact that it was on the books means that it could be applied at any time. For example, if a popular town official is a suspect, I imagine that book would be pulled out and followed to a tee.

And, if the "understanding" was that no one would really be charged, why have it on the books in the first place? Especially considering that few municipalities had the same official policy and the state cops did not have the policy either, it seems it would be an easy thing to change.

After living a short time in a small town, I know that official policies that are rarely applied, can be applied at will when it serves some cronie purpose.

This all begs the question: Why keep it as an official policy, especially considering the path of least resistance seems to be to change it?

I understand your point, that it could be used selectively. I agree that it is a ridiculous law in the 1st place and should not have been there at all.

But, if it was there and not applied, did town officials even know it was there? I'm suggesting that it was not applied, not discussed, not even known. Therefore, nobody addressed it to have the law removed.

__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson

If the Mayor and Police Chief don't know the laws of their town what does this say about their ability to run a town. Palin was the mayor, if she don't know the laws of a small town how can we expect her to know the laws of the country.
I think they both knew and just didn't give a damn about the people that were raped.

The problem would arise if the avid hunter was required to pay again or to use his own resources, and the police would not do if he would/could not. That's justice only for the rich.