Why Did Sarah Palin Resign as Governor?

[cristo]

The United States is the richest 5% of the global population.

Perhaps we should start defining our words, since you seem to have a nonstandard dictionary. I use the term "richer" in the sense that person A is richer than person B if (and only if) the sum of person A's property and cash is greater than that of person B. Thus, by my (somewhat standard) definition of the word, a person whose net property is $(n+1) is richer than a person whose net property is $n.

However, using bizarro definitions that you seem intent on using, a person who lives in Germany, say, with property worth €100,000,000 is not as rich as a person who lives in the US with property worth $10. That, my friend, is utterly nonsensical.

Even the so-called "rich" European nations have economies that by the American standard, suck, along with taxes and gas prices Americans would scream bloody murder about.

LOL! That's your opinion, I suppose (though it seems quite clear you've never actually traveled outside your country). However, what if I wanted to judge whether a country "sucked" or not on, say, the availability of free healthcare...

What is "America-centric" about saying America is the richest 5%?

Saying that the US has the richest economy in the world is completely different to saying that individually Americans are the wealthiest people in the world.

WE ARE THE WEALTHIEST 5% ON THE PLANET.

Maybe you should start using some references instead of just trying to shout to win an argument.

As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly.

Did I say that, or did I instead counter your comment that "In fact, one would think obesity would be more prevalent in those who earn at least $250K because those are your worker-bees who lack the time to workout, and also white-collar jobs tend to be more sitting on one's butt."

Did I counter you comment by simply speculating like you do? Oh no, wait a minute, I used a published, peer-reviewed article to support my argument. Have you got any support for your arguments?

...I could go on.

Sure, go for it, it would be about as strong as the rest of your anecdotal points.


Oh, and by the way, stop putting words in my mouth. Comments like "As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly" are completely misrepresenting what I have actually said. I could make up lies about you if I really wanted, but I doubt I could do as well as you're doing to yourself!

 

[WheelsRCool]

Perhaps we should start defining our words, since you seem to have a nonstandard dictionary. I use the term "richer" in the sense that person A is richer than person B if (and only if) the sum of person A's property and cash is greater than that of person B. Thus, by my (somewhat standard) definition of the word, a person whose net property is $(n+1) is richer than a person whose net property is $n.

However, using bizarro definitions that you seem intent on using, a person who lives in Germany, say, with property worth €100,000,000 is not as rich as a person who lives in the US with property worth $10. That, my friend, is utterly nonsensical.

Where on Earth do you get the impression I am saying this? I'm talking about as a POPULATION, the U.S. is the richest 5%. Of course each country has people who are what we define as rich.

LOL! That's your opinion, I suppose (though it seems quite clear you've never actually traveled outside your country). However, what if I wanted to judge whether a country "sucked" or not on, say, the availability of free healthcare...

First of all, I never said any of the European countries "sucked," I said that by the American definition, their economies suck, which they do.

Unless you want to pretend stagnant economic growth rates, chronically high unemployment, laws and regulations that completely hamstring entrepreneurship, very high national debts, and so forth, equate somehow to a good economy.

And BTW, European healthcare isn't free. It's paid for by the citizens, because so much of their wages are garnished and through ultra-high gasoline taxes so that everyone has to drive a very small car or one with a diesel engine.

The European social service systems are going to find themselves in trouble soon as so many of their elderly begin retiring while too few people are going to be paying into the system and there isn't enough economic growth or job creation.

Saying that the US has the richest economy in the world is completely different to saying that individually Americans are the wealthiest people in the world.

I never said Americans are individually the wealthiest. On an overall per capita basis, they're among the richest however. But there are nations with higher per capitas incomes as well. As a population, they are the richest.

Maybe you should start using some references instead of just trying to shout to win an argument.

I'm not shouting to win the argument, just using capitals to emphasize a point that is very obvious. It's simple math. 5% of world population with richest economy and among the highest per capita incomes, you can pretty much safely say Americans are the richest 5%.

Did I say that, or did I instead counter your comment that "In fact, one would think obesity would be more prevalent in those who earn at least $250K because those are your worker-bees who lack the time to workout, and also white-collar jobs tend to be more sitting on one's butt."

You said:

"But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!"

Her and Todd making $250K does not automatically equate to fitness.

Did I counter you comment by simply speculating like you do? Oh no, wait a minute, I used a published, peer-reviewed article to support my argument. Have you got any support for your arguments?

I do not need any peer-reviewed articles for this argument. Wealth does not lead to fitness. If anyone peer-reviewed article says that, it was written by idiots. You might find that the TREND among higher-earners is to be thinner, while the TREND among the lower-earners is to be fatter, but money doesn't equate to fitness unto itself. Fitness is very simple: physical exercise and eating healthy.

Oh, and by the way, stop putting words in my mouth. Comments like "As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly" are completely misrepresenting what I have actually said. I could make up lies about you if I really wanted, but I doubt I could do as well as you're doing to yourself!

"But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!"

So because they earn a combined salary of $250K, this automatically means they are both fit...?

 

[cristo]

Where on Earth do you get the impression I am saying this? I'm talking about as a POPULATION, the U.S. is the richest 5%.

That's fine: if you're saying that the US has the biggest economy in the world, then there's no argument!



[/quote] so that everyone has to drive a very small car or one with a diesel engine. [/quote]

It's probably better for everyone if we use less fuel!

I never said Americans are individually the wealthiest.

I'm not shouting to win the argument, just using capitals to emphasize a point that is very obvious. It's simple math. 5% of world population with richest economy and among the highest per capita incomes, you can pretty much safely say Americans are the richest 5%.

Firstly, your two sentences contradict one another. Secondly if you insist on using "math," then you should realize that phrases like "among" and "can pretty much safely say" are not strict mathematical term, and so have no meaning. Thus, your "simple math" is just bogus statistics.

"But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!"

Her and Todd making $250K does not automatically equate to fitness.

Are we going to have to dig out the dictionary again? Prevalent, means widespread, or most common. Thus, I said obesity is most common in lower earning families. I did not say that money "equates to fitness." My point was merely that keeping in shape, when taking home a high income, is not an impressive feat. I then cited a reference to support the fact that high income is negatively correlated with obesity.

I do not need any peer-reviewed articles for this argument. Wealth does not lead to fitness. If anyone peer-reviewed article says that, it was written by idiots. You might find that the TREND among higher-earners is to be thinner, while the TREND among the lower-earners is to be fatter, but money doesn't equate to fitness unto itself.

You don't understand an argument with simple scientific support, do you? That's very bizarre for someone on a physics forum!

 

[WheelsRCool]

It's probably better for everyone if we use less fuel!

Sure, but not for people to be forced to because bureaucrats "feel" the people should.

Firstly, your two sentences contradict one another. Secondly if you insist on using "math," then you should realize that phrases like "among" and "can pretty much safely say" are not strict mathematical term, and so have no meaning. Thus, your "simple math" is just bogus statistics.

Americans have among the highest per capita incomes in the world. I didn't say they have THE highest. As for the "can pretty much safely say," okay then one can flat-out say Americans are the richest 5%.

Are we going to have to dig out the dictionary again? Prevalent, means widespread, or most common. Thus, I said obesity is most common in lower earning families. I did not say that money "equates to fitness." My point was merely that keeping in shape, when taking home a high income, is not an impressive feat.

a lot of people would highly disagree with that assertion. Keeping in shape under any income is an impressive feat, because it takes hard work.

High incomes usually require hard work. People do not earn high incomes via "luck" the way the left like to imply, it takes working your tale off for the most part. And that takes up a lot of time. Being able to fit in a workout on a busy schedule can be tough.

You don't understand an argument with simple scientific support, do you? That's very bizarre for someone on a physics forum!

If the argument is that obesity is more prevalent in lower-earning families, that I understand perfectly.

If the argument is that "taking home a high income makes keeping in shape far easier," that is very arbitrary because it depends.

 

[Proton Soup]

guys, fuel is money. the more you burn, the more you earn. that's why the US has the world's largest economy. and that's one of the reasons the rest of the world wants us to use less energy. sure, we can improve profit margins and production by doing things more efficiently... but economic growth still requires energy. and if we start shrinking our energy use, we also start shrinking our economy, whilst growing the economies of others.

 

[cristo]

As for the "can pretty much safely say," okay then one can flat-out say Americans are the richest 5%.

Ok, then 'one' would be flat-out incorrect.


Anyway, this discussion is over, since it now has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Incorrect. The American population are the wealthiest 5% in the world. On a per capita basis, countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Cayman Islands, etc...are wealthier. But as a country, America is the wealthiest and it is 5% of the global population.

 

[Cyrus]

Incorrect. The American population are the wealthiest 5% in the world. On a per capita basis, countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Cayman Islands, etc...are wealthier. But as a country, America is the wealthiest and it is 5% of the global population.

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

 

[WheelsRCool]

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

Nothing. It was something we were/are debating however. It sprang off of our Sarah Palin debate.

 

[Cyrus]

whatever floats your boat.

 

[LowlyPion]

Time's analysis of the 5 reasons she may have quit.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800,00.html

Looks to me like they all stack up to a "Show me the money." move on her part.

It's less clear how astute a politician she is. One has to wonder about her piquish refusal to appoint an acceptable Democrat as required by law for the Alaska legislator that went into the Obama administration. That kind of narcissism doesn't seem like smart politics.

Maybe the real reason she left was that she found herself increasingly unqualified to handle the job of Governor, as problems mounted for which she has no solutions? Better to quit and let people think she could solve problems, than remain and prove that she couldn't?

 

[BobG]

Time's analysis of the 5 reasons she may have quit.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800,00.html

Looks to me like they all stack up to a "Show me the money." move on her part.

It's less clear how astute a politician she is. One has to wonder about her piquish refusal to appoint an acceptable Democrat as required by law for the Alaska legislator that went into the Obama administration. That kind of narcissism doesn't seem like smart politics.

Maybe the real reason she left was that she found herself increasingly unqualified to handle the job of Governor, as problems mounted for which she has no solutions? Better to quit and let people think she could solve problems, than remain and prove that she couldn't?

I have to admit that the balance between spending up to a million dollars of her own money to defend herself from allegations from outside groups vs the chance to earn money on a speaking tour would make the last reason seem pretty reasonable. That's a strange quirk in Alaska's laws.

I would agree that becoming the VP nominee has brought nothing but trouble for her. I think she was qualified to be governor of Alaska, but being the poster child for the conservative wing of the Republican Party has destroyed the Democratic base she had in Alaska.

I think she definitely wasn't (and isn't) ready for prime time, but Time magazine's mention of the 2006 version of Palin does lend some credence to Palin's claims that the McCain campaign mismanaged her by making her the poster child of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

But what else is new? Romney's campaign jumped through so many hoops to appeal the right that no one could figure out who he was by time the primaries took place. Even McCain took a lot of hits among long time backers by catering to the right. The only reason Palin and Huckabee didn't look more two-faced is because they had so little exposure before their campaign took place.

 

[LowlyPion]

That's a strange quirk in Alaska's laws.

I agree that it seems a bit onerous. It occurs to me as being about as contrived as NCAA rules concerning what head coaches are permitted in terms of recruitment. Anyone in Alaska with a view to political ambition seems to be somewhat more hamstrung than one imagines elsewhere. (Heck in some states you can just take off and see a mistress in Argentina for a week.)

I'd say the ethics violations are at once a little unfair, but occasioned by less than careful behavior on both Todd and Sarah Palin's parts, and by the blurry line they made for themselves by Todd acting in quasi official ways. Improper e-mailing and campaigning etc is too much niggling about what was actually done, but they should have been smart enough to set up parallel accounts and keep things from becoming a problem in the first place. The vindictive fight with her brother-in-law looks way too petty, yet they got way too involved for someone who would think to be seen as made of Presidential timber.

She just doesn't seem to have a big brush or a grand vision. She can't seem to paint in broad strokes, rather she seems unnecessarily caught up in picayune things. So going for the media/entertainment gold likely fits her view of herself far better than any policy ambitions that she genuinely would want to advance.

 

[Loren Booda]

Politics aside, I am concerned that she may have suffered an anxiety or depressive disorder of some kind - or is she more shrewd than I suspect?

 

[LowlyPion]

Politics aside, I am concerned that she may have suffered an anxiety or depressive disorder of some kind - or is she more shrewd than I suspect?

I know she is more shrewd than I think she is.

She would have to be.

 

[LowlyPion]

Politics aside, I am concerned that she may have suffered an anxiety or depressive disorder of some kind - or is she more shrewd than I suspect?

I would add that Maureen Dowd touched on this in her article the other day:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05dowd.html?_r=1&em

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Politics aside, I am concerned that she may have suffered an anxiety or depressive disorder of some kind - or is she more shrewd than I suspect?

Unfortunately I did not catch his name but I just heard a pollster from Alaska on the radio who speculates she has a narcissistic personality disorder and simply could no longer deal with all of the negative things being said about her.

 

[LowlyPion]

Unfortunately I did not catch his name but I just heard a pollster from Alaska on the radio who speculates she has a narcissistic personality disorder and simply could no longer deal with all of the negative things being said about her.

Then the reaction to her announcement likely isn't up to what she would have hoped. If anything the rhetoric has been amped up, with many in the Republican Party even saying it's over for her as far as 2012. (Like Karl Rove before anyone wants a cite.)

Grabbing golden security for her family seems like the real toy prize that she is wanting from the bottom of the Cracker Jacks, given the more limited means she has been raised from.

 

[math_04]

I know she is more shrewd than I think she is.

You think so? .

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I found the pollster's name. Ivan Moore.
He talked about Palin's support since her resignation but I have only found recent articles he's written regarding numbers for the Senate and House races so far.

 

[LowlyPion]

Evidently she really is thin skinned. So she got out of the kitchen. This remark is reported from fishing on Bristol Bay yesterday.

"Especially when all these lawmakers are lining up for office. Their desire would be to clobber the administration left and right so that they can position themselves for office. I'm not going to put Alaskans through that," the governor said, wearing a Cabela's fishing bib as she stood on a Bristol Bay beach outside Dillingham.

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/855907.html

I'd say it's not Alaska that she was concerned for so much as herself, with her record for not doing anything in a down economy being "clobbered" through 2010.

 

[LowlyPion]

Levi Johnston, 19, whose wedding to Bristol Palin was called off earlier this year, says he believes the governor is resigning over personal finances.

... "I think the big deal was the book. That was millions of dollars," said Johnston, who has had a strained relationship with the family but now says things have improved.

http://www.adn.com/nation/story/859606.html

It's not that the ethics charges are costing Alaska all this money, after all she brought the one charge in Troopergate against herself that by far cost the most, so if she was really concerned about Alaskans ... maybe it's that being Governor is costing HER money.

Maybe after all, everything she does is just all about Sarah? Public service is maybe just the Tollway to the treasure?

 

[LowlyPion]

Peggy Noonan's piece about Sarah:

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

 

[LowlyPion]

The accounting on the cost to Alaska for her ethics lapses seems to be a trifle inflated. I wonder if she thought people wouldn't add up the numbers?

A $30,000 an hour attorney? Palin report overstates inquiries' costs

There's some double counting and other problems with a spreadsheet outlining $1.9 million in state costs for ethics complaints, public records requests and lawsuits directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/310/story/71675.html

The cost of Troopergate was apparently over $500,000. And that was a complaint that she initiated against herself, to short-circuit legislative action. Apparently she wasn't so concerned for Alaska pocketbooks at that time when it advantaged her to spend their money.

 

[lisab]

Peggy Noonan's piece about Sarah:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

Good article.

Sort of makes me wonder if the elites of the GOP love Palin for the same reason they loved GWB so much...put a simpleton in White House, and the real power is available to those who know which strings to pull.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oddly there is another board I go to occasionally that has been bombarded lately by spambots quoting snippets of news articles about Sarah Palin.