Odd dynamics... what is the subtext of this recent comment from Bill Clinton?
Why would Bill Clinton bother to say such a thing? Although he states his support for his party's candidates, what good does it serve to make such a comment? Bill is a very savy politician, is he sending a message to the Obama campaign?

i don't think there is necessarily a subtext to that, otto. i think it's basically correct--it makes no sense to underestimate either palin, or the conservatives--and especially not the political machinery that the right has built. it's just a stupid way to play a game--underestimating your opponent is a sure way to loose.

thing is that i am not sure who the message is really directed at---i don't see any evidence from obama or biden--going by what they say that i've read--that indicates any such underestimation. i do think that the campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the republican strategic terrain, or at least they had been allowing themselves to get pulled into it until this week.

i think it's clearly true that alot of folk who write blogs underestimate palin, underestimate the right...but they just write blogs.

at the moment, though, in this campaign universe, things seem in flux, as they are everywhere else (even amongst the red sox, from what i understand)....i see mc-cain trying to "get in front" of the financial catastrophe at the expense of being able to be even a little consistent, and obama being a bit more circumspect---but when i watch the nitwits on television who run these idiot "political" shows, they seem to think that being circumspect (waiting to talk much until it becomes a bit clear what's happening, so that what you say can be coherent) is a Problem. so who knows?

Isn't it interesting, though, that we've learned to listen for what's behind what Bill says?

The timing of Clinton's comments is interesting... perhaps a nudge in a positive way? Like you say, who really knows.Indeed

I agree. I feel like the Dems and their supporters have vastly understimated Mccain/Palin and continue to do so at their peril. It would be wise for the Obama campaign to stay on point and focus on garnering support instead of looking for ways to bash McCain/Palin. Playung their game is not a good idea. Stick to the plan.

woohoo, just got tix to an obama speech in charlotte on sunday afternoon, should be interesting.

i know it's ot, but i'll see how it works out :)

I think psuedo-intellectuals design I.Q. tests and tests like the SAT's. They create themselves. Real intelligence, i.e.-problem solving, comes in many forms not measured in tests requiring a number two pencil.

you know, this populist thing is getting out of hand in conservativeland.
all this "anti-intellectual" horseshit amounts to is a new bizarre form of officially sanctioned and directed bigotry from the right---now it's some amorphous "intellectual elite that fills the function of Persecuting Alien against which the Wholesome Right, now new and improved with a Monopoly on Practical Understanding, can construct itself. and so it follows that critical thinking is a characteristic of the Enemy and Competence a Problem--unless it is expressed in the form of whatever the conservative parameters of the moment say it should be.

what's hilarious is that the folk pulling the strings behind the conservative media apparatus, the folk organizing this turn to poujadiste-style petit bourgeois resentment as political mode of living, probably graduated from the same schools as the Evil Others did. and many of the Captains of Industry at whose feet the right grovels so long as they are republicans might well have gone to these same schools as well. legacies, dontcha know, that constant bulkward against intellectual consistency in these Bad Bad Schools.

but hey, no matter, what fun is thinking about that stuff when there's all the thrills and chills of good old Grouphate to be had...

but you'd think that after 8 years of trafficking in this idiot demonization as a way of generating a sense of belonging for the reactionary set that the mechanism would be threadbare and its functions transparent.

amazing.

as much as i detest standardized testing, they are a huge indicator of college retention rates. Enough so that i wouldn't downplay their results.

and yes, they are often biased, etc, but not in any way against gwb. Problem solving also isn't really a great indicator of 'real' intelligence as much as creativity and resources. Also, i can't really think of too many problems bush seemed to 'understand' much less, 'solve'

I don't accept that reasonable individuals really believe all intellectuals are bad, and that only average joe's are good... that would be ridiculous (and sounds a bit Khmer Rouge). But blanket statements arguing accademic peidgree, grooming, and being "connected" as a basis of qualification is just elitist. Yes... in the beginning of someone's career, the school they attended, grades earned, awards awarded, etc. are excellent indicators of potential. Once someone is experienced and have applied what they have learned in their field, we have their actual performance as indicators of proven ability. Gifted, well educated, articulate individuals have shown a great ability to succeed and fail miserably.

Einsteins from all political stripes are continuously f**king things up on a daily basis. So what is an intellectual in this context of proven incompetencies? And what good are they really? And what value should we place on the opninons of those so quick to issue a blanket intellectual seal of approval? Are the earthy folk not capable of intellectual excellence and critical thinking without attending all the right schools? It's irresponsible to discriminate because someone is an ivy-leager or an accomplished state-college grad... conservatives and liberals attend both.

Perhaps we're witness to a growing populist revolt... except it's coming from the right instead of the left. It may not be justified, but the perception of old-school elitist failure is being promoted with great popularity. Is there a thread of truth to that perception? If so, is it an orchestrated over-reaction or justified?

otto......what popularity? where is "the perception of old-school elitist failure" being promoted other than by the conservative talking heads?

Unless you consider Limbaugh "ditto heads" (and other followers of similar [partisan infotainers) a growing populist revolt.

No ditto-heads. Maybe it's a regional perspective... or perhaps it's just blissfully beneath the radar of those in denial or simply not paying attention?

Wake me when its over!

Or at least point me to something that would support the conclusion that the perception is widespread and goes beyond the Republican base.

You bet! :thumbsup:

The Palin selection has its benefits and its costs, which should be known:

One thought pushes fence-sitters to the left: Palin - St. Petersburg Times

There is no populist revolt of any sort in the US. We have a top-down political structure run by and for elites like McCain, Thain, & Bush ostentatiously gesturing populist. This gesticulation takes place in a public media run by and for elites. The Palin selection was one of those gestures.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. One thing I keep reading is many people aren't really voting for Obama but rather voting against McCain/Palin. Palin's played well for the base but is pushing a lot of independents away. Will it be enough to put Obama over the top? We'll see. I honestly think Obama needs to be up 10-12 points in the polls to win by 3-4%.

I've said for month that I'm not going to trust the polls reliability until October. And even then, they're going to be shaky. One problem? They tend not to hit people without land lines, who are disproportionately young people. And young people disproportionately support Obama. Another is that current polls over-emphasize the effect of recent events. I think you can see this in McCain's polls numbers. They got a bump because of the Republican convention and the selection of a young, attractive, female V-P. As the novelty of these two events wears off, people are moving more towards where they were before the conventions. I think we are only starting to see what the real effect of Sarah Palin is going to be at the polls in November (which are, after all, the only ones that matter). Another problem is that it can be hard to accurate predict who is going to vote. So I wouldn't pay too much attention to polls if I were you.

To what degree racism will affect polling data and the election is an interesting question. I'm thinking that it will, but not to the same degree as before. Ann Selzer, who was the only pollster to get the Iowa caucuses right, has said that a certain degree of Obama support generally goes under the radar due to his support among young people/first time voters. According to Selzer, this support goes unregistered because it is harder to reach via the usual polling method, i.e., calling a land line.

Obama's Senate race did not test the race issue, but he had surprisingly wide support from conservatives and Christians. Kerry won a few counties -- Cook, Rock Island, Jackson (E. St. Louis), Alexander (Cairo), Champaign (barely), and around Quad Cities & Galesburg. In contrast, Obama did very well all over the state, including the suburbs of Chicago and downstate. I don't think it was just because he was running against Keyes. He probably would have beaten Ryan as well, even without the pervy divorce papers. (I think he was up 22% on Ryan when the race started.)

So, the pattern of support for Obama is different than Jesse Jackson's or Bradley's -- or Kerry's for that matter. He does get votes from cities & industrial workers, but that's not really his base.

Interesting, hope you're right. I'm concerned. I spent most of my adult life living in rural Oregon. I worked out of the courthouse in two small county's. I remember in 1986 they tore down city hall and moved the offices into a remodeled courthouse. In both buildings they found KKK clothing and assorted items. People weren't shocked, in fact many found it funny and took them home as keep sakes. When Thomas was confirmed to the SCOTUS my neighbor, an honest to God WWII war hero, stood on his front porch and screamed to my other neighbor "I can't believe they put that nigger on the Supreme Court, the worlds gone to hell now!" For brief time after leaving my state job I drove truck, mainly because I had time and CDL. It was a part time, well paying, gig driving live crab from the Oregon coast to the San Fransisco bay area. The guy I drove truck for was a decent enough guy, hardest working 68yr I ever met. One day I went by their house to pick up my paycheck. They'd just come back from Vegas. I asked his wife how the trip went. She went on to explain they had to check out of the first casino because her husband went down to the lobby to buy a USA Today early the first morning and saw a group of black guys hanging out. I asked her if the new casino had black people staying there as well. "Yeah, but not as many."

Oregon's a pretty blue state and this isn't the norm esp. in the larger cities and college towns. But in rural Oregon it most certainly can be an issue. I remember seeing a piece on the Daily Show asking people in West Virginia why they didn't vote for Obama their answers were exactly what I would have expected from some of my old neighbors and co-workers.

There's a whole lot of rural out there in the US. In some key states these types of attitudes could make the difference.

I hope they don't make a difference in Minnesota. This traditionally blue state has Obama and McCain neck and neck. I've lived in small towns up here. Motherfuckers are racist.

Minnesota's a state I think this could be a problem. I think many states have the potential to be problematic for Obama. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado- really any state where it's tight and there's a large percentage of rural white voters I believe it could be a serious problem. And no I'm calling all rural white people in the aforementioned states racist. I'm simply stating I believe racism is a real thing and if the vote is close the small percentage of people who are racist could prove to be the tipping point. Which would be really sad, IMHO.

YouTube - Palin's Nonsensical Answer On Domestic Energy

i love this woman, seriously. She is about as entertaining and watching gwb try to get the 'fool me once' quote right.....

on topic: what the hell is she saying, honestly? i can't even make out what she's even trying to say and i've listened several times...


oh, and from the nytimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us...uGw&oref=login
so is the mccain group admitting palin isn't exactly ready to openly debate? gotta keep it to a bit of pre-scripted events and the tiniest bit of free flowing interaction? sounds like someone isn't confident in their candidate....

Let's be clear. I am biased against pseudo-intellectuals. I also believe I gave an example or two explaining my problem with them. In your case here you have taken specific and directed comments and made broad and often false generalizations without addressing the specifics. What do we call this form of discourse?
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 11 : 00 : 04-----
I think at one point I stated that pseudo-intellectuals create themselves. If academic types design tests to determine if people would do well in academics they could. If entrepreneurs designed test to determine if people would do well being entrepreneurial they could. If war minded people designed tests to determine if people would do well in war, they could.

I think it important to be open to the differences and to be tolerant of what others bring to the table. Pseudo-intellectuals tend to be less tolerant than others in my opinion. It seem that it has to be their way and any opposing thought on a subject is summarily dismissed.

Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com

obscene:


wow, so her idea of rape: "ladies..you are assaulted..we charge you for the rape kit/exams..oh and you have to carry the baby.
where did we find this woman...

while it's emotionally charged and tied, this should be about fiscal respnosibility.

so then who pays for it? It obviously isn't free. and should I have to pay for it when someone lies like Tawana Brawley?

umm..

if it's proven lying, sure...but cmon, we are talking about regular people...

i'm pretty sure she could afford it out of the 290 million + that she didn't return for the bridge to nowhere she said "please..thank you...oh, i'm embarrassed now, thanks but no thanks...but i'm keeping the money..."

that buys a lot of rape kits ;) ( and yes, i know..wrong timeframe, but it's still funny)

You have to be kidding. The fucking taxpayers pay for it. This is about being a professional police department, there is no difference between collecting evidence on a suspected rape than there is for any other crime. If someone was murdered would they bill the victim's family for the CSI work?

There are systems in place to punish people for false accusations. We don't fuck over a victim just because there is an occasional liar.

No I'm not kidding. Sure right, Mr. Pagones' reputation has be retcified because of Tawana's lie. Justice has been served. :shakehead:

Actually, there is mounting costs for all of these technologies, and yes, sometimes families are being charged with associated costs. Ambulances aren't necessarily free rides to the ER. There's a cost to them and they bill back depending on state and county.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying there's fiscacal accountability that is required. If you're saying it's to come from the tax base as a whole great, increase taxes accordingly. It hasn't been happening enough, there's not ever enough taxes being paid apparently to cover the costs of running things.

umm....

i don't understand how charging someone for costs associated with a crime is fair. Some states are adding $15 onto a speeding ticket to cover the gas that the officer used to catch you....that actually makes more sense. This is simply, "you've been assauted, here is our bill for doing our jobs for which you pay taxes..."
i can't find any way to justify this. Sure, if you're lying, you should pay for it and the fines that go along with it, but for the average person to go through that trauma, then receive a bill from the city....you've gotta be shitting me.

There are more costs than just the police showing up.

Crime scene clean up (biohazards) aren't just cleaned up by your normal Molly Maids. It's a certified job which requires special skills and cleaners, and license from the state.

Who pays for that? The person who wants the place cleaned up, not the city, not you, or me. Just like when the windows are broken due to fire, it's not me who picks up the tab.

Cororner has a fee for picking up the body.

and so forth....

This is for the tests performed on the woman who was raaaaaaaaped.

not on her house that was damaged
or on her body that was carted away....

but on a woman who was assaulted physically and raaaaaped.

lemme put it this way: 99.999999% of the country does not charge for it...alaska gets more earmarks per capita than anyone in the union...she raised taxes on oil companies, etc, and was able to give people an extra check from the alaska permanent fund....

they could afford it.

They actually estimated the costs for the rapekits at about 20k a year. That is half the cost of the SUV the city bought Mrs Palin. Also its way less than the millions they spent on a new indoor hockey stadium with heated seats.

Cynthetiq are you actually suggesting that victims should pay for the investigation? Do you see how doing this would lead to a system in which only the rich can have justice served? If you are poor then to bad....

You missed my point so far I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse or you just don't know what the hell you are talking about. I'm going to assume you aren't being a dick. If you aren't familiar with what a rape kit is, please check here.

When a suspected rape occurs the victim's body is a crime scene. The only difference is that the rape exam is done in a hospital. They aren't providing a service with your precious tax dollar, they are looking for evidence.

Charging a victim for a rape kit is analogous to telling a homicide vics family that they'd love to analyze the blood spatter at their loved one's crime scene but they are going to charge you for it.

Your comment about crime scene cleanup is completely irrelevant to the subject.

Psychology voting | Salon interesting article about why it is so hard to change someone's mind about a candidate....

It doesn't matter, things have COSTS. Even the HOSPITAL has COSTS associated with processing the rape kit. That is a resource of person who is not doing something else, who is getting paid right? Or are they doing it for free? Or getting a government voucher for doing such things?

No, I'm not at all. I'm saying that there is costs, and who is going to pay for it? I'm all for giving away services that are needed. I live in a community with lots of services many of which I do not use, but they fund themsevles to pay for all the outreach that they do outside of the government dollars that are given.

I'm a person that believes simply in financial responsibility. If you don't have the funds for something, you can't just "wish" for money to appear. Once money comes from some place, then it's prudent to figure out how to best spend it.

I am not being obtuse, I'm being practical. If there's one thing that life has taught me is that if you give an inch someone is going to take that to a yard. I never implied that one should be charged, in some cases it makes sense to charge someone back for it. I've stated simply WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

But to come into a forum and then use an emotionally charged point of "RAAAAAAPE!!! she's charging for RAAAAAAPEE!" is practically trollish to illicit a response for how horrible an individual may be all because there could be an element of fiscal responsibility.

Again, my point is about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. So far NO politicians seem to have any real handle on that, democrat or republican.

Who the hell do you think would pay for it? The police department and ultimately the taxpayer. Again, it is evidence collection. Routine police work. You don't get to cry fiscal responsibility when it comes to evidence collection. You do it because that is what is necessary to solve the crime.

Can you identify another crime that the police department charged the victim to investigate?

no. that's not what i'm talking about, but you seem hell bent on that kind of response.

again, I'm only advocating for who pays for it.

and yes, I can cry fiscal responsibilty. Collecting DNA and other things costs MONEY to collect, store, properly house and track. It isn't FREE. There's no FREE EVIDENCE Warehouse. Nor do the computers to store the infromation so that people can cross refrence from other crimes come for free from Dell.

that's not trollish, that's just my level of absurdity at charging someone for being raped. You can change it to charging the family of murder victims for doing the necessary testing. anything at all. I'm just shocked at "who is gonna pay for it' ...the taxpayer.. It's like insurance..everyone pays into a system and when it's needed, it SHOULD be there...this isn't that much different.

i don't get why it's even an issue of 'who would pay for it' as that just seems to go under 'things taxes pay for"

Again, the absurdity was to garner an emotional response from someone. My response wasn't "OMFG she's charging for rape! How asinine!" because I believe that there's a cost associated with things and how will we fund them?

When you pay lots of taxes, maybe at some point you aren't going to be so interested in paying even more taxes. I don't care about the rest of the folks out there after point, "an imaginary line in the sand," if you will.

At some point, I don't want to pay more taxes and continue to get less goods and services.

You may be interested in doing so, but I'm not.

It seems to me that until there is a general understanding, clearly enunciated by the government in question (particularly at the local level) and the citizens it serves, that basic government services like police (and follow up criminal investigations) will be based on "fee for service" rather than general taxes, I just dont see any justification for charging potential crime victims.

maybe if that's a problem you should be advocating a wholesale rethink of priorities in terms of where tax money gets spent: i don't understand why you'd be all "fiscally responsible" about treatments for rape victims and investigations into the circumstances that surround it, etc,. and silent about the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan, the continued obscene levels of spending on military hardware, on useless weapons systems, the Enormous Sucking Sound made around tax dollars to bail out the financial sector as they confront the consequences of their own irresponsibility...

It's called the cost of doing fucking business. It doesn't matter that there is no FREE EVIDENCE Warehouse or that the computers don't come free from Dell. If you are going to run a professional police department you have a certain standard of practice that you need to live up to. Fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with it. Stuff like this has to get done. Period.

If these simple things are too cumbersome for a small town to pay for then they can dissolve the City PD and contract out to the County Sheriff to do the police work. Here in the Phoenix metropolitan area both Sun City and the Town of Guadalupe contract out to the Maricopa County Sheriff Department.

I agree it's pretty asinine to charge for a rape kit while the governments gives other types of medical assistance for free. For example for anyone who has ever been exposed to TB, you can get pills for from your local health department for free. So why not rape kits?

Who is going to pay for the fire department to come to your house when it is burning down? Who is going to pay for those roads you drive on? Who is going to pay for those police that guard the streets. Who is going to pay for your soldiers in Iraq? This is why we have taxes to promote the common good. Lets see 20K a year for a city with a population of 7,000 that is about $3 per person per year.

TB pills don't pose a risk to a potentially viable fetus. Rape kits usually include the morning after pill. Considering her religious adherence to her pro-life position, even being against abortion in the case of rape or incest, it's not unreasonable to think that this move may have been motivated by her want to impose her morality on her constituents. I mean I could be wrong, but it seems like 2 + 2 = 4 in this case.

Thank you will for finally explaining this to me.

She seems somewhat disinclined to enforce said morality, actually. She refused to sign Alaska's anti-gay-marriage law when it hit her desk due to its' unconstitutionality. Everyone's freaking out about how she's supposedly some kind of religious fascist, but I've seen no evidence of this and her veto of the gay-marriage bill seems to put the lie to the stereotype. Was this an asinine move? If move it was, sure. However, this seems to be a policy which significantly predates her mayoral tenure, not one which she initiated. So this then moves from a "sin of action" to a "sin of inaction" at most, and considering that the Chief Of Police supported the policy it may have been out of Palin's hands. Does anyone have a source on where such a policy decision would have had to come from according to AK law? Because in some jurisdictions the Top Cop has the last word on such things while in others such a decision might be made by the Mayor, any one of a number of Commissioners or other functionaries, or even by an anonymous pencil-pusher (Hey, that's how ATF does things) with no accountability at all.

Like I said, I'm all for it, just want to know where it comes from and who really is saddling the bill.... see you guys all are willing to decry someone for their choices of fiscal prudence... maybe when you get to steward budgets of millions of dollars and have to start picking and choosing.

You guys just want people to sit here saying, "Oh yeah... what a bitch she wants to charge for rapekits!! how much more crazy is she!?!?!?!?!"

I'm not interested in that emotional decry. I'm going to say simple, who's going to pay for it? Great, increase everything by $.25. Wonderful! keep adding things to that bottom line and soon, you've inadvertantly increased taxes by a fucking lot. NYC real estate taxes just went up 25% in one year. Services are cut by a percentage because the budget won't balance.

But you're going to say, "ooooh but raaaapeee!!!" No, I say FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Sorry, fuck that, I'll gladly pay for social programs, and the "who's going to pay for the fire department" Duh, didn't you know? some counties actually charge you for services since SOME fire departments are not part of the city budgets. FDNY EMT comes to your house here in NYC, guess what that ride costs $400+ and you get a bill sent to your house.

well, if you haven't read it before, you should read thoreau's "on civil disobedience"--he made a similar argument--he opposed the mexican war, he paid taxes, such as they were in the 1840s, and figured that he didnt want to pay for something he opposed, so he refused to pay taxes. the counter argument was that tax money is pooled, so he couldnt know where his particular money went--no-one knows what they pay for in particular--so there was no reason for him to think that by not paying taxes that he was therefore not paying for the mexican war. of course, he had an aunt who bailed him out of jail after a few days and he got a good essay out of it, which is more than most of us get from most such things. and it is a good thing to read for the argument and for the way he says it, which is quite pissy, and he was good at pissy. he was good at walking through landscapes too, but thats another story.

i don't see the fiscal responsibility argument you're making at all, cyn. i really don't. i don't see how it follows---i don't see any arguments against health care in general not being a right, though--one of the things that capitalism should provide the people in exchange for being able to derive profit from interactions with them, and as something consistent with the claims capitalists make about the system--that it helps distance people from necessity, that it can make a better more humane way of life possible. that seems a desirable political goal, making people's lives better. it's one i support. i do not support the idea that "fiscal responsibility" exists in a vacuum, that it is independent of other considerations. i think it is fiscally irresponsible for a civilized country NOT to pay for basic health care. it's far MORE irresponsible to pay for shit like nuclear weapon systems. you want to free up money for this sort of thing? be more a pacifist and advocate dismantling the national security state--that be responsible in a thousand ways, and way way down there on the list would be "fiscal responsibility"....but it'd be there.

rb, my sole point of this diatribe is strictly hinged on the idea that someone posts, "But she want to charge for rapekits.. .raaaaape!!! someone was raaaaped! and she wants the victims to pay..."

I'm sorry that's shortsighted in my book to put an emotional charge towards something. I framed it as a troll because it's along the same lines, trying to get a response from someone. My response wasn't the exepected one, which was either, "OMFG! you're right what a cunt!" or "Yes, because everyone should have some morality shoved at them because abortion kills!!!!" No, again, my tack is much more practical than that.

I'm the same with the national security, not all that happy to pay for someone to say I can't have more than 3oz of liquid on my person in the airplane, that's just as fiscally stupid to me especially since we have pourous borders, but like you said, those are different stories.

And as an aside, or BoD we killed 1 shift of our day security in our $20M budget so that we can save $80,000. Even after an assualt (covered in the news) in our buildings. So when you want to talk about having to pick and choose which line items you have to get rid of, I'm ready with my pen to start crossing things off, some hard choices have to be made at some point in time.

why not cut out all security. save yourself 240K instead.

I'd love to, and it would save close to $1M, the $240k you're thinking of is only 1 shift 1 station, there are many to cover all 4 buildings, but that's not a reality in our neighborhood.

1678 apartments over 4 buildings, there needs to be some security. This was removal of a satellite in the middle of 2 parks. It didn't make sense to build it, and still doesn't make sense to staff it.

Cynthetiq for president! No fire departments, no police departments, no military, no government what soever because we aren't going to pay for it! To bad Cynthetiq will be working for free in our little anarchist world.

I already work for free. As a member of the board of directors for a corporation it is illegal for me to be compensated for my time.

I haven't once injected language into this thread to emotionally charge the topic because the subject is rape kits. I have been consistent that a rape kit is about collecting evidence only. On the other hand, rather than give an honest debate you chose to center your argument around strawmen and catchphrases. After that you have the nerve to accuse ME of being the troll? That's rich.

I have also been consistent in my argument that a rape is like any other violent crime and you need to collect evidence if a police force is going to have any shred of a chance at proving a case. THE ONLY WAY TO COLLECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AFTER A SUSPECTED RAPE IS TO DO AN EXAM!!!

Guess what? Putting out fires are ambulence services are not one and the same! That's another falacious argument you made in this thread but at least you were witty and condescending about it!

Guess what again? Private security services and Police services that are required by law are two different items! Another example you gave that has nothing to do with the topic.

Maybe you just don't understand what fiscal responsibility is about. Police departments need cars in order to respond promptly. They don't get to cry fiscal responibility and choose to not have cars. They can, however, hold back on upgrading or buying cheaper models. The forensics labs need lab supplies and computers to do their jobs. They don't get to cut computers from the budget. They can, however buy cheaper computers or hold back on upgrades.

kutulu, my emotionally charged statement was posited towards paq who made the inital claim. That post was trollish IMO, it wasn't a serious troll, but it is in line with the same kind of thoughts.

again my statements are about financial duty, I'm just referencing the ability to pick and choose service, which is FIDUCIARY duty, which is what I am talking about.

you are welcome to get all up in arms about my opinion, but it's simply all about fiscal responsibility.

I'm not thinking about the collecting of or maintaing any chain of command for evidence control. I'm speaking strictly about the dollars and cents.

Wow, interesting take. I didn't even think about that.
-----Added 23/9/2008 at 01 : 37 : 31-----
Thanks for the info. Good to get a different perspective.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a professional cop? Or that police departments were doing business?

Is it so hard to understand Cynthetiq's point Kutulu and Rekna?

Some services are necessary, some are important. A whole lot are not.

In the end what you 2 want is a good slab of taxes and contributions that you pay the state to take care of you.
Cynthetiq feels quite the opposite. Things have costs. They need to be taken care of. It's a personal and independant view.

That doesn't mean that people could not rally to help said rape-victim, even financially.
It just means that compassion/empathy shouldn't be enforced by the powers that be.

Being a professional can mean you're simply paid for your work. So, yes there is such a thing as professional cop.

And running almost any office or department is a business. Even a volunteer fire department is a business, or at least there's business aspects of running it. Just because the tax payers provide the income doesn't mean it's not a business. Budgets have to be worked out, staffing levels have to be administered.

there are business aspects, I definitly agree.

But a business is meant to provide goods or a service and get a profit out of it.

I don't mean to play down the level of work and effort that goes into running your department or office efficiently, far from it.

I'm also not saying that a fire or police department is not important. To me those things can and should be paid for by groups of people (be it a city, a county or what have you)
Because they are meant for groups of people. Crime/Riots/fire can lay waste to streets, valleys, ...

Maintenance and building of roads, and the like: the very same thing.


Individual cases: not so much. There can and should be other organisations to take care of this, that you personally choose to be part of, or not.

this style of "responsible" thinking seems very mid-19th century.
not only do you not understand the modern period, but it's still right in front of you and you treat things like infrastructure services as abstractions. they have histories. your "solutions" are among the reasons these services are as they are in the first place. they don't work.

why is it that "fiscally responsible" and ignorant of history go together so often?

So are you claiming stopping rapists is not important to society? I would disagree.

That is correct, there are many non-government organizations that fill in where government doesn't provide the service. There's nothing requiring job placement, job training, parental counselling, but there are many NGOs out there that do provide this kind of service. Some of it is subsidized by the government and other contributions come from local business donations.

I prefer that NGOs take care of the domestic issues, since they can be small, nimble, grass roots and closer to the "battle" so to speak.

but no, this isn't about that apparently it's about how appalling it is the insensitivity we have towards someone who is raped. Apparently we should all stop what we're doing because someone says "raaaaape" and foot the bill for everything.

Tully, thank you. That's a great point, it's important to understand that budgets are budgets, no matter what the "business" is, from fire departments to schools, there are constraints and choices that need to be made.

The idea that every police station needs certain computers or has to have access to them, doesn't come lightly. Police stations do without alot of times. Sometimes it's given monies from the federal level ala the gas masks that Hilary Clinto sought for NYPD after 9/11 because the local budget just will not allow for it.

Maybe some of us are not quite getting what you're saying then, and vice versa?

Putting the financial aspect aside for a moment, if someone you loved was murdered in your home, is it your responsibility to clean it up and pay for the cleaning service? And if someone you know/love is raped, should you have to purchase a rape kit and have a cashiers check ready so someone will respond to your call for help?

This is why you and I pay property taxes. If you'll notice, taxes are in line with the area where you reside and changes annually based on budgets determined by crime statistics. The rape victim is entitled to those services, yes. If it's determined that the charges are false, then the nonvictim should be required to pay as part of the lawsuit against her.

Yes, in some counties you are to pay for biohazard cleanup. Not saying that the rapee has to have a check in hand, what I'm saying is that it costs something and the money doesn't magically come out of thin air. People are billed for services rendered all the time. This is from the rapekit to the professionals who do the exams and evidence gathering. There is a cost for their time, billable hours that are charged against something, somewhere.

Again, saying that "you've got to have check in hand" is trying to make this more emotionally charged than it is. People get services, and get a bill in the mail payable sometime in the future. Sometimes, hospitals eat costs, that's what they do when you contact the billing department and say,"It's coming out of my pocket, not the insurance company's"

Property taxes aren't just about crime statistics. There are goods and services the city provides, from police department to social programs, trash pickup to gardening and park beautification. Crime is only a portion of it. I'd like to see leaner social programs run by NGOs since they seem to have a better handle on it that any government agency, and that has been my suggetion for who pays for the rapekits, even if the NGO is federally funded. It makes more sense to me that an NGO is responsible for this as opposed to any government entity.

Taxes can only cover so much via the budget. There are constraints to how much taxes can levy and be distributed. Because taxes have not increased in comparison to the services that are being rendered, fees are being assesed to people. This isn't uncommon at all, from phone bills to court rooms. I call it businesses LYING, from private/public companies to governments. It is a TAX. But they won't call it a tax because people will be pissed off. It is a tax, ask of you can get that fee removed, you don't want to pay for it, you didn't order it, you didn't want it, etc. You can't. It's soft worded tax. It didn't require the normal voting and approvals to get past the lawmakers, so FEE it is.

Your property taxes should cover your water and sewer, but in many towns now you pay a seperate fee for your water, and then a seperate fee for how much supposed waste the water uses the sewer system. Why is that? Because increasing the property taxes so high would make people not want to move to such areas.

Rape kits are not services or aid or anything to help the victim. It has nothing to do with victim counseling. It is for evidence collection only. The PD cannot conduct the investigation without it. The only way to form an argument that it may be reasonable to charge the victim is to show any other serious crime where the victim is billed for the evidence collection.

This is what is included in a kit:

The only think that I see as possibly uncessesary is the HIV exam.
-----Added 23/9/2008 at 01 : 03 : 54-----
You've already tried using this. Biohazard cleanup has nothing to do with evidence collection. I see no reason why a taxpayer should be on the hook for biohazard cleanup on private property.

I'm not trying to USE anything. Please get that chip off your shoulder, there are OTHER people in this discussion that ASKED

You are free to refrain reading and from responding to my posts since they aren't directed towards you.

NOTE THE QUOTE BOX ABOVE FROM JEWELS ASKING IF CRIME SCENE CLEANUP IS PAID FOR.

If we bill the victims and they don't have the money do we report it to creditors? Do we put a lean on their house?

Let's see a poor lady gets raped. She can't afford the kit and knowing she will have to pay for it she decides to not report it. Rapists realize this and begin targeting poor people.

Gotta love the world we would create.

And since when do we bill the victims for the investigation of crime? Look, I've worked as a prosecuting attorney, I know you don't always have all the resources you could want to prosecute a crime. But when it comes to a serious crime, like rape or murder, the state can and should pay all reasonable expenses to see that the crime is investigated and prosecuted. I see no reason why a rape kit shouldn't be included.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, Cyn, I'll be honest. If it's just that rape kits cost money, well, sure, of course. So do police officers. But unless you think the investigation and prosecution of crime should be entirely privatized, I'm not sure why you think that the cost of a rape kit is so out of line.

I love it! You guys only read what you want to read. It's really simple what I posited.

I simply asked, if the starting post of this line, "Raaaaape! She wants to charge for rape kits..." who is going to pay for it? Someone has to.

That's it. Simple as can be.

I didn't say "It's a right!" "It's an entitlement" "I don't want to pay for it" I simply asked,"Who is going to pay for it? the victim? the state? The money has to come from someplace."

But no, there seems to be NO READING COMPREHENSION to the posts I've made, people just getting all up in arms emotional because there's a victim and that's unacceptable and you stop reading.

I've not said anything about costs being out of line. Please read carefully.

She bounced a line item as can be the discretion of someone responsible for financial stewardship. If she's not willing to pay for it, and there is still a need and the cost are being incurred, then it has to be paid somewhere by someone, so the next logical question is WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

that's ALL MY STATEMENT has ever been.

It is clear that we are saying the state/fed/local government should pay for it with the most logical places being the local and then the state as to encourage the local police to lower the crime rate by capturing these guys. With that being said I would love if congress would pass a national law tomorrow similar to what Alaska had to do. Under no circumstances should justice be a privilege for the wealthy.

And here is where I'll definitively diverge. It is not a Federal responsibility. It isn't a requirement for the Federal government as listed within the US Constitution.

I'm happy that each state, county, or district take it upon themselves. To claim that the entire US has to have a Federalized program for this, smacks of more than just Homeland Security patrolling our borders, but also allowing them patrolling our cities and streets. It's more pork than I care to want to pay for. No thank you.

I think the problem that you're having Cynthetiq is that it is difficult to understand why your question "who is going to pay for it?" is even that interesting. When it comes to investigating rape with rape kits, the idea that fiscal responsibility is a dominant factor is silly. Maybe if rape kits cost lots and lots of money.

It's like saying "Yeah, well, I know the cops need to drive, but who is going to pay for it? I mean, fiscal responsibility and shit." It's not a complicated issue for most people, so when you try and make it one I think it's difficult to take seriously.

I just hope that you can appreciate the fact that you're shrilly screaming "fiiiiissscal reeesponssibiliteeeee" in exactly the same way you're accusing other people of screaming "raaaaaaaaaaape".

no i can't. because I wasn't. I made the statement ONCE, and then had to keep repeating myself because no one bother read past the first 2 words of my posts. Becuase everyone said it's unjust, unfair, victimized, blah blah blah blah rape and never addressed what my first initial response was. Only tried to take me to task for things outside of that scope in some other emotionally tied vein like putting a lein on the victims house for not paying.

Y'know, we did read. It's just that your arguments were absurd. And instead of dropping it, you now play the victim. Oh isn't it so unfair, unjust, and don't you feel victimised blah blah blah that no one else sees the molehill as a mountain.

Your trivialisation of rape is appalling, and it's one reason why rape is so traumatic for victims.

Part of the federal governments duty is to provide security for the states. Crime investigation and enforcement is part of providing security.....


I would say this falls under common defence and general Welfare.

Violence Against Women Act.....one of Biden's major accomplishments.

Among its provisions, it requires that state/local govts provide rape exams to victims free of charge as a condition of receiving federal funds for other programs under the act. Alaska passed state legislation in order to qualify for federal funding, and yet during her time as mayor, Palin's city still wanted to charge victims.

One section of the law that allowed women to sue their attacker in federal court was later determined to be unconstitutional.

McCain has repeatedly voted against it, even after the latest reauthorization that removed the unconstitutional provision.

okay absurd, whatever. You guys just want someone that checks off your outrage and agrees with you. And you guys wonder why few people wish to play in the sandbox?

I've not claimed being any victim. Facts are facts, you can read them yourself. I stated facts, not said, "oohh please you didn't read what I wrote, boo hoo." Get over your own ego for a few minutes.

To also state that my position on rape is appalling because I've stated that I'd like to know who pays for the programs has nothing to do with rape, but you guys all seem to want to go the emotional path. If it was ANY social program that was being denied funding, I'd still ask how is this going to be paid, and who is going to pay for it?

cyn...what raised some eyebrows is the notion that funding constraints should be a factor in the investigation of what many might appropriately consider the second worst crime one could experience...after murder.

If funding is an issue and PDs neet to cut funding, it should be from the bottom up...starting with victimless programs.

Many would claim rape to be the worst crime possible even before murder. Rape is the crime that keeps with someone for life and can absolutely destroy a person from the inside out.
-----Added 23/9/2008 at 06 : 57 : 23-----
Here is a question for you Cyn. If a parent is suspected of molesting their child who should pay for the investigation? The child? The parent?

Sheesh. Now that I've read all of Cyn's responses, I'm not sure why everyone's up in arms. Cyn's never minimized the crime of rape itself. I think his only error was mentioning Tawana way back. I know that raised my back for a while.

But what I believe I'm hearing is this: We're in this financial crisis. People can't buy or sell real estate. Property taxes are a huge factor. US and state governments have been privatizing for years, i.e. USPO, Florida's toll systems. Florida's budget has been cut by millions, thanks to the voters here who chose to back the $200 annual property tax cut, which is forcing the closure of County parks, loss of jobs, transportation and other service cuts (multiply that $200 break by how many homes in the State?). Police and fire departments have been cut as well, at least in South Florida. For a lousy $200. :sad:

Every state agency, every county and every city receiving funding sat down for hours and hours to determine what would get cut. I heard some of our (Broward) County Commission meetings, and it wasn't easy. It's great to read the paper and declare what a bunch of assholes they were to cut certain programs, but it's not so easy to weigh them and play fair.

With this economic crunch, we might need to find alternative means to pay for some things so we can maintain the police and fire department. Would we cut staff to buy rape kits or should we keep everyone on payroll in case we need them? These are the decisions we're talking about.

Rape is a horrific crime. Hang 'em high. But the rape kit must be paid for. If a State budget is cut and if we don't want to bill the victim, what should we do? Lay off some cops so we can buy rape kits? What options do we have? Is privatization a viable option?

How about we cut that $40,000 in per diem the govern of Alaska gets every year to stay in her own home that is more than twice what would be required for Wassilla. Or how about all that money they used to fly her family around. Or if we want to make this a local thing how about the millions of dollars Wassila paid for a hockey stadium with heated seats. My point is there is lots of things that should be cut before cutting things like rape kits.
-----Added 23/9/2008 at 07 : 55 : 45-----
Wasilla to get new sports complex | Construction > Construction Overview from AllBusiness.com

There you have it 14.7 million on a hockey stadium for a city with the size of 8,000 people. They could invest this money at a low 3% interest and get $441,000 a year more than 20 times what would be needed to cover the rape kits. The money we are talking about for these rape kits is a non-argument.

We're not in a financial crisis. The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

why not charge the perpetrator...or make the fines so expensive as to cover the cost of the rape kits..

and rekna said it best..this wasn't a town that 'needed to make necessary cuts' when they are spending like they were. sorry, no way, no how, no mccain..err, whatever

you guys again, sit and stare at the trees and can't see the forest.

I don't care about the victim vs. victimless crimes. There are costs plain and simple. If there are costs, then who pays for it? where do those monies come from? I never said there should be restrictions on anything. I asked the fucking REAL question. I never said it shouldn't be provided. I asked WHO WILL PAY FOR IT IF THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WILL NOT.

PLEASE PEOPLE LEARN TO READ.

But again, you all would rather troll for blood on something to make yourselves feel better at night.

As Lennon says, "Whatever gets you through the night..."
-----Added 23/9/2008 at 11 : 41 : 54-----
thank you.
-----Added 23/9/2008 at 11 : 43 : 13-----
do you understand how per diem works? It's still CHEAPER than paying for her to stay in a hotel which she is entitled to stay while on government business.

i think the point that a lot of people have tried to make, and have said many times (without re-reading the thread), is that the govt. should pay for rape kits. there is no question of who should pay for it. the govt. (be it local, state or federal) should.

Sorry...but I just dont buy it.

WHY DO YOU THINK YOU PAY STATE AND LOCAL INCOME TAXES ....if not for basic government services, like enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders.

I understand that many cities are facing serious budget shortfalls and making tough decisions.

I also know that there are many ways to cut local budgets, including police department budgets, w/o putting funding for the investigation and prosecuting of violent crimes on the table.

Cyn...your fucking real question just doesnt make sense to me under any circumstances.

It may not make sense to you, but look it happened in Alaska. The government said, No we're not paying for that. So the next thing to ask is, well it needs to be paid for, who will pay for it? You can rail all you want that the government should pay for it, but what if the law didn't get passed? The question would still need to be answered.

It may not be something that makes sense to you, there's lots of things in the world that don't make sense to me, that's part of life, welcome to humanity.

In this case there was a new law that forced the government to perform, in the future, will they still have to perform? I'm going to say, maybe not. Why? Because other countries, who have poverty, graft, and corruption in government services don't get these services, why am I expecting that the USA will be much different than these other as it continues?

I'm not predicting doomsday that it will forever be that way, but in the realm of 50 states, this vast country, I'd say that in 1% of our country it has to be a possibility.

As far as I know, it happened in ONE city in Alaska..and at a time when the VP nominee was the mayor of that city....and by any measure, that city was not among the most cash-strapped cities in the state.

There was no new law to force the city to perform.

And isn't it all it takes to ASK that question?

Now I'm lost. :)

What question?

I can understanding questioning how to fund a new municipal golf course or a new wing to the library or snow removal services or...

I just dont know many cities that would ask that question about funding for the investigation and prosecuting of violent crimes against its citizens....other than Wasllla, AK, when Palin was mayor.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that a federal law was passed that made them have to be compliant for federal funding. Isn't that you posted earlier?
So again, if that DID NOT PASS, then again, the question would still be needed to be answered.

And again, fiscal stewards get to choose how to generate revenue (tax) and pay expenses (spend). It's rather simple.

States get to pick how they deal with the federal level type stuff on some local levels, compliance in some manner, yet thumb in the eye in another.

VAWA imposed no requirement. It established conditions to receive broader funding.

And I still get back to the fact I just dont know many cities (and I have worked with alot of cities) that would ask that question about funding for the investigation and prosecuting of violent crimes against its citizens....other than Wasllla, AK, when Palin was mayor.

you guys are like broken records.

We agree to disagree.

that's the problem dc. I'm not disagree with anyone. I'm asking the simple question, but no one is interested in actually doing the diligence.

"it's not any real money..." "cut per diem spending" "many other things to cut"

but you know what... this was the discussion, this was what was affected. FACT. not supposition, not guess work, no it is the REALITY.

Here is where I diverge from the rest of you folk. I'm not interested in the decrying and emotional gnashing of the teeth. I'm interested in the operational fiscal responsiblity and stewardship of a multimillion dollar budget.

You disagree with me on what? What is it that I'm saying that you disagree with? That I'm asking where the funds are going to come from for ANY program?

cyn....we are not talking about ANY program.

I've worked directly with cities and states for 15 years and I have never heard any local or state official ever ask the question about funding for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes. IT IS A GIVEN that it is a government responsibility.

In your own words....you are sounding like a broken record.

There is more to the story of the sports complex in Wasilla. The people wanted it, voted on it and got it. The people bear the burdon of debt. The mayor just helped it along. Many kids (and adults) will find a better life because of it. What the media has "conveniently left out" is that the sports complex is used by residents of Palmer, Willow, Houston, Big Lake, Knik, Butte, etc... basically the entire Mat-su Borough..... only the size of West Virginia.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough: Living in the Mat-Su Borough

I don't think anyone knows the true population... too many remote areas and people that don't want to advertise their presence.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough:

Is that enough people to warrant a heated seat?

Saying that the mayor left the town in debt is a half truth at best. Media spin or ?

Per Diem - Sarah used her home in Wasilla as her second home. She claimed her residence in juneau as her primary. I would believe that most governors use the governors mansion as their primary. Juneau is a more expensive area to live so I would believe that the per diem rate would be higher there. I also believe that the number of days that she spent in Wasilla was smaller.
My math says that she utilized the benefits afforded Alaskas governor to minimize the actual cost to the state. Many Alaskans believe that the capital should be moved closed to the population anyway.

Wasilla is growing rapidly. Short construction seasons, lack of roads, schools, etc will continue to be problematic for at least a few more years. When the pipeline starts and the prison is complete, watch the population.

I have not heard the local theory about the rape kits. Small rumors are around, none seem credible.

I go to Wasilla most Thursdays, I will keep my ears open.

Won't the prison be empty because victims will have to pay for there own investigations?

Alaska currently outsources out warehousing of prisoners to the lower 48. It is expensive. Transportation is a huge expense.

I do appreciate your sarcasm. I like to believe that most people are most critical of things that they don't understand.