A right-wing religious fundamentalist group called Liberty Legal Institute has stepped into Alaskan politics in a bid to silence free speech.

According to the AP the group contends that no-one should be allowed to investigate and release details of Governor Palin’s Troopergate:

…lawmakers filed suit Tuesday to end the bipartisan investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of the public safety commissioner even though the vice presidential candidate once said she welcomed the probe into allegations of abuse of power.

The lawsuit called the investigation “unlawful, biased, partial and partisan.”

She welcomed the probe, but the religious fundamentalist thugs are stepping in to shut-down the dialogue because they fear it might hurt her chances of being elected.

…she said in July that she’d welcome and cooperate with the investigation ordered by the Legislative Council. “Hold me accountable,” said had said.

Compare that with the critics of the lawsuit:

“There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election,” said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. “We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it.”

Clarkson said he and a nonprofit legal firm in Texas, Liberty Legal Institute, were donating their work on the suit.

I do not understand. Partisan reasons to stop an investigation are acceptable? According to whom? What reason is there to delay an investigation other than to hide the results and censor or silence critics? Palin herself asked to be held accountable, so why not hold her accountable?

Donation is such a loaded term.

What they probably mean is that the GOP is taking contributions from churches to cover legal work for the election. They would rather protect Palin from Troopergate instead of helping the poor, the needy or the disenfranchised.

What else has the Liberty Legal Institute done?

Their site says they have fought to protect prayer in school (Croft, et al. v. Governor of Texas), they have tried to remove controls regulating and zoning property for churches (Plano Vietnamese Baptist Church (PVBC), et al. v. City of Plano and Templo Bautista Nueva Jerusalen v. City of Duncanville and Collegiate Community Outreach (CCO) d/b/a UNT Chi Alpha, and Nathan Wesson v. City of Denton, et al.).

They fight against freedom of speech as they work to advance christian influence over schools and government. When these fundamentalists win, they will make others pray to them and their god and demand that everyone call it “freedom”.

Moreover, they have fought to increase corruption in government by arguing gifts should be allowed as part of the selection process for officials (Free Market Foundation, et al. v. David A. Reisman, et al.). Clearly they consider corruption and cronyism a benefit of the free market, as though they believe in some sort of demented and highly ironic Nietzsche superman system of governance.

No surprise, given all this, that they try to confuse “protect religious freedoms” with “First Amendment rights”. It is an intentional mistake. They wave the Constitution as a form of camouflage. They need to cover their intent to stop you from flying free. Once all the targets are all eliminated, wings clipped, there will be no need for the veil of a Constitution. In the meantime, they will tell you they are here for your own safety…

The BBC says Israelis have found DNA tests of dog feces to be an effective method for pet control:

Authorities in Petah Tikva, near Tel Aviv, are setting up a special DNA database of local dogs.

They will use the data to match dogs’ droppings to owners – and punish those who do not clean up after their pets.

The system is said to be voluntary:

At the moment providing a DNA sample was up to individual dog owners, but the city was considering making it compulsory, she added.

Funny. This seems like a good use of technology. Combined with video surveillance, the dog poop threat might finally be under control. Worth the cost? The BBC suggests the cost of cleanup by UK councils is over £22m a year.

Will they next take fingerprints from garbage?

Davi

Either you get cheap goods at home, or death in another state. What do you choose? Governor Palin has asked the Governor of California to keep goods cheap for Alaskans while people (and animals) in California die. The LA Times explains:

“We are losing about 3,400 Californians each year because of pollution,” Lowenthal said. “No matter what Gov. Palin would like to see happen, the impact is killing Californians. I don’t think Gov. Palin truly understands the impacts going on here.”

John Casey, a spokesman for Lowenthal, added: “Maybe Sarah Palin doesn’t care about Californians.”

That is correct. Palin does not care about Californians. She does not care about the environment, about the budget, about health-care…all she cares about is making herself and her friends rich.

If she really opposes a tax, then she should ban pollution that causes severe financial strain due to health and environmental destruction. Just because she can not see it on a price tag does not mean there is not real and measured consequences, and just because it is not hurting her family directly does not mean that it is not a public concern.

Above all, the real question is why the Alaska Governor thinks she can tell the California Governor how to handle the health and welfare of people in his state.

A Reuters story on the happiness of tall people caught my attention:

Data from a Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index study found taller people were more satisfied with their lives, more likely to report positive emotions like enjoyment and happiness, and less likely to report emotions like anger, sadness, and stress.

My first reaction was to consider all the tall people I have known and how they have had a very happy-go-lucky attitude. Sometimes they seem far happier than all those around them, kind of like a big dog can often be really aloof and content with life even while all the little dogs are running around yapping at each other.

Then I read about Gates’ presentation regarding his appointment of new Generals to lead the ongoing war in Iraq:

Injecting a bit of humor, Gates made note of what he called “one other historical achievement” for the new command team of Odierno and Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who replaced Odierno in February as the No. 2 commander and will remain until next spring.

“Between Gen. Odierno and Lt. Gen. Austin we just might have the tallest command in American military history — about 13 feet of general by my estimate,” Gates said. Each of the generals is nearly 6 feet 6 inches tall.

The aloofness has started already:

Odierno told the gathering that while much remains for the U.S. military to accomplish here, the Iraqis must take charge. “This struggle is theirs to win,” he said.

Our mission is accomplished, remember?

The same article has this note:

Petraeus said the insurgents and militia extremists who have created such chaos in Iraq over the past five years are now weakened but not yet fully defeated. He noted that before he took the assignment in February 2007 he had described the situation as “hard but not hopeless.”

He thanked his troops for having “turned ‘hard but not hopeless’ into still hard but hopeful.”

Despite the security gains, insurgents retain the ability to carry out devastating attacks. On Monday evening, a female suicide bomber blew herself up among a group of police officers northeast of Baghdad, killing at least 22 people. Hours earlier, car bombs in the capital killed 13 people.

Hopeful rather than not-hopeless?

Maybe if you are above 6′ tall this kind of language makes sense to you. To me it just seems like double-talk and vagueness, which is probably why Petraeus is getting a promotion while the straight-talking, honest and hard-working generals are being asked to step aside.

I am really getting sick of the crony system of Republicans that is based on hope.

Bremer was a documented liar and thief, but he always had hope. Do we really need more of these “hopeful” thinkers?

At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared. Ed Harriman on the extraordinary scandal of Iraq’s missing billions

[…]

In the absence of any meaningful accountability, Iraqis have no way of knowing how much of the nation’s wealth is being used for reconstruction and how much is being handed out to ministers’ and civil servants’ friends and families or funnelled into secret overseas bank accounts. Given that many Ba’athists are now back in government, some of that money may even be financing the insurgents.

Both Saddam and the US profited handsomely during his reign. He controlled Iraq’s wealth while most of Iraq’s oil went to Californian refineries to provide cheap petrol for American voters. US corporations, like those who enjoyed Saddam’s favour, grew rich. Today, the system is much the same: the oil goes to California, and the new Iraqi government spends the national wealth with impunity.

With the corruption of the American Republican party today, I find it impossible to be hopeful.