Palin and rape victims - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

Tech · 09-10-2008, 02:19 PM

anyone else heard about this yet?

Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, AK from 1996-2002.

This was an article run in Wasilla paper in 2000 about a new state law.

Quote:

Knowles signs sexual assault bill

Published on Monday, May 22, 2000 9:00 PM AKDT
JO C. GOODE / The Frontiersman / May 23, 2000

ANCHORAGE - Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

The governor signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, outside the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam room at Alaska Regional Hospital. In attendance at the signing were members of victims advocate groups, law enforcement agencies and legislators.
*
The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.

Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.

Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said.

The new bill would also make law enforcement agencies that are investigating a sexual assault responsible for the costs of testing victims for sexually transmitted diseases and emergency contraception.

even if this isn't Palin's doing herself, she did appoint this police chief during her term, and to let this stand on her watch is an outrage. even if the intent is to eventually "pass the cost along to the criminal" on sentencing, making the victim pay at ANY point, even if they are "reimbursed" is rediculous! especially when the reason is to prevent the "burden" from being placed on the taxpayers.

yeah, increasing-white-women-converting-to-mccain-after-obama-overlooked-hillary, this woman really has your back when it matters...

Willravel · 09-10-2008, 02:23 PM

They should charge murder victims for CSI services. Gotta love privatization.

Cynosure · 09-10-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech

yeah, increasing-white-women-converting-to-mccain-after-obama-overlooked-hillary, this woman really has your back when it matters...

Why is it so many white women are getting behind Palen? Is it, "Yes, we had a choice, in our youth - but we don't want our daughters to!"

Tully Mars · 09-10-2008, 02:55 PM

Worry not, the WSJ and Fox will be issuing a talking points mem... I mean story, yeah story, shortly to explain why this makes perfect sense.

roachboy · 09-10-2008, 03:11 PM

"women are behind palin" mostly in the republican dream factory.
it produces smoke.
don't inhale: it's harder than your first puff on a sheesha.

inBOIL · 09-10-2008, 06:17 PM

So you're holding Palin responsible for an opinion expressed by someone else?

Quote:

and to let this stand on her watch is an outrage.

To let what stand? Allowing a city employee to express his opinion? Or allowing the police to bill victims' insurance companies? Either way, the article doesn't say or suggest that Palin supports billing victims, or even that she knew this policy was in place. If it turns out that she did support billing victims for exams, then your criticism is valid, but until then you're jumping the gun.

Rekna · 09-10-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inBOIL

So you're holding Palin responsible for an opinion expressed by someone else?

To let what stand? Allowing a city employee to express his opinion? Or allowing the police to bill victims' insurance companies? Either way, the article doesn't say or suggest that Palin supports billing victims, or even that she knew this policy was in place. If it turns out that she did support billing victims for exams, then your criticism is valid, but until then you're jumping the gun.

Not quite.... Palin was the mayor, she is responsible for the city, she appointed the guy who put this in place. She had the authority to stop it but didn't. She shares some of the guilt in this.

inBOIL · 09-10-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Not quite.... Palin was the mayor, she is responsible for the city, she appointed the guy who put this in place.

Did she appoint him, or was he already there when she took office? Did somebody else appoint him? Was he elected? The article doesn't state how Fannon came to be police chief. Even if she appointed him, can she be expected to know what decisions he'll make, or be responsible for all the mistakes he makes?

Quote:

She had the authority to stop it but didn't. She shares some of the guilt in this.

Most of the cities I'm familiar with have some kind of council that makes or approves decisions. I didn't realize that the mayor of Wasilla has carte blanche to dictate policy without the approval of others.

Fotzlid · 09-10-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

She had the authority to stop it but didn't.

I don't see how you came to this conclusion based on the article posted.

Willravel · 09-10-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

I don't see how you came to this conclusion based on the article posted.

Actually, it's correct. A mayor is ultimately responsible for police leadership and policies. They oversee all city departments including the police department.

Sarah Palin did appoint the police chief in question. She fired the previous Chief because he wanted SOME gun control and then found Fannon to replace him.

Poppinjay · 09-10-2008, 08:19 PM

Palin is an asshole. There, I said it, it's out there (to the small TFP crowd). How can anybody support her? She's for all the bad things and none of the good things the GOP represents.

Fotzlid · 09-10-2008, 08:42 PM

Wow Will. You got a lot more out of that article than I did.

Willravel · 09-10-2008, 08:50 PM

There's more information out there than what's just in the article, but the Huffington Post did reference one of the issues surrounding his dismissal: he wasn't willing to play ball with the NRA. It's a strange story, and it makes Palin look like a grade A moron. A corrupt moron.

Rekna · 09-11-2008, 08:14 AM

It is pretty clear that Palin has control of who is the chief of police... she fired one for personal reasons and it has become a big scandal. Also as Will said there is more information on this than just that one article.

Fotzlid · 09-11-2008, 11:22 PM

I am actually finding it quite hilarious that Palin is causing such fits of apoplexy in the liberal and liberal minded community.
Like a politician has never used their power to advance their cause and/or help friends in the past. And I'm not talking about just these 2 articles either. If you listen to the press, its like she is the second coming of Satan.

jorgelito · 09-12-2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

I am actually finding it quite hilarious that Palin is causing such fits of apoplexy in the liberal and liberal minded community.
Like a politician has never used their power to advance their cause and/or help friends in the past. And I'm not talking about just these 2 articles either. If you listen to the press, its like she is the second coming of Satan.

Unfortunately the Democrats don't get it. If they keep up this obsessive attack campaign on Palin, they will lose the election which will be too bad. Instead, they should focus on what was working before: unity, inclusion, "change", issues, and policy.

Obama, my vote is pretty much yours to lose. Don't blow it.

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

I am actually finding it quite hilarious that Palin is causing such fits of apoplexy in the liberal and liberal minded community.
Like a politician has never used their power to advance their cause and/or help friends in the past. And I'm not talking about just these 2 articles either. If you listen to the press, its like she is the second coming of Satan.

You should listen to some the TV preachers and read some right wing blogs. To then Obama isn't the second coming of Satan - he is Satan.

But I agree with jorgelito, the Dems are losing this by the way they're handling Palin. They're falling for some new spin on some real old tricks. "You're hitting her just because she a woman, you're a sexist" "You can't hit her she a woman, if you do hit her she's a victim." This is all silly, like the lipstick on a pig BS. McCain can use it in talking about Hilary's health ideas, that's cool. Obama says it about McCains policies, that a sexist remark aimed at Palin.

Palin's a politician and her record, experience and thoughts on policy should be an open book. Her family? Her children be left alone. Her husband, if he has been CC'ed State Gov. e-mails and is a member of the AIP, she should be asked about that.

Charlatan · 09-12-2008, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Unfortunately the Democrats don't get it. If they keep up this obsessive attack campaign on Palin, they will lose the election which will be too bad. Instead, they should focus on what was working before: unity, inclusion, "change", issues, and policy.

Obama, my vote is pretty much yours to lose. Don't blow it.

I agree. Let Palin bury herself.

To win the Dems need to concentrate their message on the positive. Argue for what you are going to do not what is bad about the other side.

There has been enough negativity.

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

There has been enough negativity.

The sad fact is in the US negative ads and campaigning has been very effective time and time again.

As the race stays tight and time runs short the mud will fly. Obama basically gave the 527's a green light recently. The rights 527's are gearing up too. It's going to get very ugly, IMHO.

smooth · 09-12-2008, 04:41 AM

Every time I see Obama speak, I see him repeating a positive message.
I also see him repudiating any people disparaging his opponents.

The only people I've heard say he ok'ed 527 attack ads are news reporters telling the audience that they heard it somewhere.
some democrats I've never heard much about may attack Palin, and op-eds may attack her, but I don't know how this transfers to Obama...

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Every time I see Obama speak, I see him repeating a positive message.
I also see him repudiating any people disparaging his opponents.

The only people I've heard say he ok'ed 527 attack ads are news reporters telling the audience that they heard it somewhere.
some democrats I've never heard much about may attack Palin, and op-eds may attack her, but I don't know how this transfers to Obama...

Obama can't directly communicate to the 527 groups, nor can McCain. Which leave them both sending messages and signals through the press.

Like this-

From The Altlantic

Quote:

There's been a spurt of 527 activity on behalf of Sen. John McCain, but Barack Obama campaign has suddenly gone silent on the subject.

That's because, after a year of telling donors not to contribute to 527 groups, of encouraging strategists not to form them and of suggesting that outside messaging efforts would not be welcome in Obama's Democratic Party, Obama's strategists have changed their approach.

An Obama adviser privy to the campaign's internal thinking on the matter says that,with less than two months before the election and with the realization that Republicans have achieved financial parity with Democrats, they hope that Democratic allies -- what another campaign aide termed "the cavalry" -- will come to Obama's aid.

The Obama campaign can't ask donors to form outside groups; it can only communicate, through the public and the media, with body language, tells and hints.

The upshot: Obama's campaign will no longer object to independent efforts that hammer John McCain, just as, in their mind, the McCain campaign has not objected to those efforts targeted at Obama. "I assume with their 527s stirring, some [Democratic] ones will as well," another senior campaign official said.

The money is there. The top two 527s -- the Service Employees International Union and America Votes -- are liberal in orientation. The SEIU fund has contributed to other 527 efforts, and America Votes has earmarked most of its money for what it calls the "largest grassroots voter mobilization" in history. The third largest 527 -- American Solutions Winning the Future -- belongs to Newt Gingrich, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The AFL-CIO has budgeted more than $53 million for messaging and turnout efforts and has run a limited flight of ads featuring veterans criticizing McCain. But they've shied away from larger-scale campaigns in part because they believe -- or believed -- that the Obama campaign did not want them mounted.

In April, after Progressive Media USA, a group formed headed by Republican-turned-Democratic media critic Matt David Brock (originally, by Tom Matzzie), announced plans for a $40 million ad campaign against McCain, the Obama campaign send word through associates that donors would be discouraged from raising money for it. After the primaries ended, Brock turned the group into a much-less expensive opposition research concern. Brock bowed to the reality that the Obama campaign wanted to centralize everything -- message, advertising and field operations -- in Chicago.

The campaign cannot coordinate with most outside groups, and they worry that a major 527 effort by Republicans could tilt a balanced electorate toward McCain and erase the resource advantage that Obama and Democrats have accumulated.

The New York Sun reported Monday that a Sacramento Republican linked to a McCain bundler is raising money for a new group called "Leadership for America's Future."

** The American Issues Project is spending $3m on a battleground state ad campaign that ties Obama to ex-Weatherman William Ayres.

** Freedom's Watch, which plays mostly in House elections, has spent nearly $500,000 worth of hard money on ads against Obama.

** Vets for Freedom plans a $10m campaign on ads touting the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

** The Republican Majority Campaign has tallied more than $1.3 million in independent expenditures against Obama.

Marc Ambinder (September 09, 2008) - Quietly, Obama Campaign Calls In The Cavalry

smooth · 09-12-2008, 04:54 AM

Exactly what I said: reporters claiming they heard something from somewhere.

I've seen every Obama speech and snippet and have never witnessed him indicate through body language, hinting, or otherwise that he wishes any attack ads on McCain or Palin. In fact, it's the opposite. When you paste something indicating Obama is personally ok'ing personal attacks in any way shape or form, I'll retract my stance.

EDIT: btw, even if accurate, "hammering" someone is not the same as smearing or sliming an opponent. There are tons of legitimate issues to hammer both McCain and Palin on that are factually correct and damning. The ads against Obama, however, have been gross mischaracterizations of the reality and his political stances.

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Exactly what I said: reporters claiming they heard something from somewhere.

I've seen every Obama speech and snippet and have never witnessed him indicate through body language, hinting, or otherwise that he wishes any attack ads on McCain or Palin. In fact, it's the opposite. When you paste something indicating Obama is personally ok'ing personal attacks in any way shape or form, I'll retract my stance.

Since he can't legally do that be prepared to remain on your stance.

All this stuff happens through staffers and behind the scenes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

EDIT: btw, even if accurate, "hammering" someone is not the same as smearing or sliming an opponent. There are tons of legitimate issues to hammer both McCain and Palin on that are factually correct and damning. The ads against Obama, however, have been gross mischaracterizations of the reality and his political stances.

I agree with some of that. But Palin's also been attacked on false and made up issues. I think the difference is Palin's been attacked in the press and by the bloggers. Obama's been hit directly by the McCain camp in ads and speeches that are full of complete BS.

My concern is we go into full shiftboat mode on either or both sides.

roachboy · 09-12-2008, 05:27 AM

or we drown in an ocean of lint.
but no matter what happens, come november it will be presented as legitimate.
so it doesn't matter if we drown in an ocean of lint or not.

personally i have found that if you do not want to entertain the notion of drowning in an ocean, it's best not to swim in it.

how does one go about not swimming in the ocean of conservative lint? like the other ocean, it seems everywhere. and repetition is power--redundancy, you know--what shapes the distinction signal--noise. there's no a priori. redundancy is determinate. repetition is power.

09-10-2008, 02:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
Tully Mars Moderator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yucatan	Worry not, the WSJ and Fox will be issuing a talking points mem... I mean story, yeah story, shortly to explain why this makes perfect sense. __________________ Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club People are always bitching about getting what they deserve... I think if they did they'd be greatly disappointed. Me

09-10-2008, 03:11 PM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	"women are behind palin" mostly in the republican dream factory. it produces smoke. don't inhale: it's harder than your first puff on a sheesha. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-10-2008, 08:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Join Date: May 2004 Location: DC/Coastal VA	Palin is an asshole. There, I said it, it's out there (to the small TFP crowd). How can anybody support her? She's for all the bad things and none of the good things the GOP represents. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

09-12-2008, 04:41 AM	#20 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Right here	Every time I see Obama speak, I see him repeating a positive message. I also see him repudiating any people disparaging his opponents. The only people I've heard say he ok'ed 527 attack ads are news reporters telling the audience that they heard it somewhere. some democrats I've never heard much about may attack Palin, and op-eds may attack her, but I don't know how this transfers to Obama... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-12-2008, 04:54 AM	#22 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Right here	Exactly what I said: reporters claiming they heard something from somewhere. I've seen every Obama speech and snippet and have never witnessed him indicate through body language, hinting, or otherwise that he wishes any attack ads on McCain or Palin. In fact, it's the opposite. When you paste something indicating Obama is personally ok'ing personal attacks in any way shape or form, I'll retract my stance. EDIT: btw, even if accurate, "hammering" someone is not the same as smearing or sliming an opponent. There are tons of legitimate issues to hammer both McCain and Palin on that are factually correct and damning. The ads against Obama, however, have been gross mischaracterizations of the reality and his political stances. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 09-12-2008 at 04:58 AM.

09-10-2008, 02:23 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	They should charge murder victims for CSI services. Gotta love privatization.

09-10-2008, 08:42 PM	#12 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Join Date: Dec 2007	Wow Will. You got a lot more out of that article than I did.

09-10-2008, 08:50 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	There's more information out there than what's just in the article, but the Huffington Post did reference one of the issues surrounding his dismissal: he wasn't willing to play ball with the NRA. It's a strange story, and it makes Palin look like a grade A moron. A corrupt moron.

09-11-2008, 08:14 AM	#14 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003	It is pretty clear that Palin has control of who is the chief of police... she fired one for personal reasons and it has become a big scandal. Also as Will said there is more information on this than just that one article.

09-11-2008, 11:22 PM	#15 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Join Date: Dec 2007	I am actually finding it quite hilarious that Palin is causing such fits of apoplexy in the liberal and liberal minded community. Like a politician has never used their power to advance their cause and/or help friends in the past. And I'm not talking about just these 2 articles either. If you listen to the press, its like she is the second coming of Satan.

09-12-2008, 05:27 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	or we drown in an ocean of lint. but no matter what happens, come november it will be presented as legitimate. so it doesn't matter if we drown in an ocean of lint or not. personally i have found that if you do not want to entertain the notion of drowning in an ocean, it's best not to swim in it. how does one go about not swimming in the ocean of conservative lint? like the other ocean, it seems everywhere. and repetition is power--redundancy, you know--what shapes the distinction signal--noise. there's no a priori. redundancy is determinate. repetition is power. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite