Here’s an enjoyable op-ed by Keith Olbermann about fraudulent Sarah the Governor proudly touting her state’s communist tendencies. I know David and other BMGers have continually hit Palin on Alaska’s redistribution of oil wealth, but this is just too fun to pass up.
Com*mu*nism | noun | – Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.
Sarah Palin, August 2008:
And Alaska, we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs…. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.
Senator Biden, can you explain how Barack Obama er, Sarah Palin is not a Marxist? Quick, someone call Joe the McCarthy! ROFL. Here’s Keith:
More at Think Progress, including a solid mashup of Palin red baiting.
The oil companies do.
They pull it from the ground and distribute it.
They pay the Alaskans for the right to do so.
That isn’t communism.
<
p>I’d say nice try, but it kinda.. ain’t.
What’s it called, then, when the people collectively own a resource, control the production rights and share equally in the wealth created? The companies can’t produce the oil and gas without a lease, right?
<
p>I just want to get my definitions straight.
Gasoline is produced. Oil is recovered.
…because we collectively own Miles Standish State Park, and folks pay us to use it.
<
p>Honestly, with all that’s going on these days, I would think that you would want to find something a bit more grown up to hang your hat on.
<
p>Are we communists? I would categorize the ownership of MA state parks as a socialist in nature. It’s a form of socialism that is governed through our democracy, and we, the owners of these properties can decide how the goods are distributed (goods being the use of the parks) and how it benefits us. We may also decide to have these land “privatized”, which to me seems to be the opposite situation from what it is now. The dictionary opposite of privatization is nationalization (I know MA is a state, not a nation), and nationalism is a major component of socialism. I would not say MA, by definition, is a socialist entity. But I would say that with the state parks, the T, state-subsidized colleges, etc, we have blended helpful elements of socialism into our democracy that all of us enjoy and depend on; same with the federal government.
<
p>What differentiates Miles Standish SP, etc, from the Alaska resources of gas and oil is that, while we all profit from the ability to go to a state park and enjoy ourselves, it’s not a monetary for-profit enterprise, there’s no “means of production” because nothing is being produced, and no wealth is redistributed amongst the citizens. And while people pay to use camping facilities at MA State Parks, the money is not spread amongst citizens of the Commonwealth for the greater good, the money is put back into the DCR for the parks.
<
p>You might have had valid analogy if MA figured out a way to lease these state parks to private companies that turned the parks into a wildly profitable enterprise and we all got dividend checks from the state every year, or even if the T or something became so profitable that we all got checks, but it’s not the case because the AK situation is unique.
<
p>Speaking of being grown up: I answered your question, how about you answer mine?
And I see no utility to answering yours, other than to prolong a discussion that is based on silly premise.
…because then you’d have to admit that you were wrong, huh? I understand. That would be, you know, “grown up” as you say.
<
p>Or perhaps you couldn’t think of a clever way to explain how what Palin said is not just as (if not more) “marxist” than what Obama has said and you think you can save yourself embarrassment by pretending to take the phony high road of dismissing my question as unworthy. You’re the one who decided to engage me on this topic; if this whole premise was so silly that it was beneath you, why bother responding in the first place? Either you originally found it worth discussing and then all of a sudden changed your mind, or you realized that you would have to answer “socialist/communist” to my question and didn’t want to admit that you were wrong and decided to become dismissive. I’m guessing the latter.
<
p>And I misrea – you, in fact, didn’t ask a question. My eyes inverted two words and I read “So we are communists” as “So are we communists…” Whether you answer my question or not, either way, Sarah Palin is still a double-talking fraud by calling Obama a socialist for the very same language she proudly flaunts when talking about her state’s royalty checks.
<
p>geo999 says that Alaska’s royalty system isn’t communism. Coming from a Palinist perspective, I wondered what it is called when the people collectively own a resource, control the production rights and share equally in the wealth created, and geo999 won’t answer me. Is there anyone on the right that can help me get straight these definitions so I know exactly how that which is done in Alaska isn’t socialist, but what Obama said is socialist? Is not anyone fit enough to meet the challenge?
tblade: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
geo999: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
geo999: stupid git
Thank you.
His show is 60 minutes of McCain/Palin bashing… nothing else.
<
p>My hopes would be he goes off the air since his audience is insignificant compared to The Spin Zone. I switch over during commercials vs. taking ipecac.
<
p>Tblade, KO and others are really stretching it to make Palin sound like a communist. But keep trying, 6 more days. You guys must be nervous.
I know that’s not your demographic, but it’s the one that counts with advertisers.
Let her back it up.
Kathy’s always rather well documented. If I thought she erred, I’d say so, but, on the facts, I’d be surprised. I believe I have disagreed slightly with her in the past on one of the Kerry/O’Reilly threads that you ignore.
<
p>If I look at my recent comments, I’ve recently offered disagreement (or at least change of nuance) to Bob, Mr Lynne, Petr, AnnEm, and MCRD. Sorry that I take the time to respond to you.
<
p>However, one thing I do object to is people offering evidence that doesn’t prove their point.
<
p>I read Atrios regularly. Atrios frequently points to television ratings. The segment of the market to which Kathy referred is one that advertisers really care about. In fact, the chart Kathy mentioned (the one you didn’t steal bandwidth for) I had already seen earlier today.
Now I told you a few days ago about learning something new everyday. Today I learned about “stealing bandwidth”. Never heard of that before. Now how dos that work? I see postings all day long on BMG with pictures and videos… are they “stealing bandwidth”? Do I have to “give credit” and then I can post an image/video? Obviously I could supply a link only but that wouldn’t address the issue of others doing… or are they also “stealing bandwidth”?
<
p>Either way thanks for the heads-up!
THAT’S THE POINT!
<
p>Keith, by applying Palin’s definitions to Palin’s own words, is sarcastically mocking Palin’s (and Eabo’s and John McCain’s) extremely dubious repeated claims that Obama’s quote to Joe the Plumber proves unequivocally that Obama is a Marxist commie socialist.
<
p>I don’t think Palin is a communist, I doubt Olbermann seriously thinks Palin is a pinko, and I know for sure that Obama’s comments to JTP and his now-infamous radio interview doesn’t make Obama a commie. But if we apply the same farcical standard that Palin, McCain and the Eabo’s of the blogosphere hammers over and over and over again to Palin’s words, it fits perfectly, no stretching involved.
<
p>Thankfully, I don’t live in Sarah Palin’s fantasy world and I have enough sense to not subscribe to the definitions of communism, Marxism, and socialism that Palin and pals wish were true.
McCain-Palin has been a bit like Grandpa’s Republican campaign. The accusations of socialism and of not being “pro-America” sound so Cold War. We wonder how long it will take before we hear from them that the Obama campaign has been infiltrated with pro-Soviet agents.