Sarah Palin is moving to Arizona. Is she simply following her daughter Bristol who purchased a residence in the same state earlier this year? Or is the caribou killer from Wasilla planning to run for the U.S. Senate in 2012? Probably both.
Although former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin has hinted recently that she may still run for President of the United States, she has, so far, neither visited any early primary states, nor has she taken steps to hire any campaign staff members. She has, however, reportedly bought a multi-million dollar house in Scottsdale, Arizona, and her sudden decision to seek a sunnier, more southerly zipcode might mean she's gunning for Jon Kyl's U.S. Senate seat. Senator Kyl announced earlier this year that he would not seek re-election.
Actually, rumors of a Palin run for the U.S. Senate from Arizona have circulated for months. And unlike a similar bid for the U.S. presidency, La Palin would definitely emerge as the front-runner for the position. So far, the only politician to announce his candidacy for the Senate seat so far is Arizona U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake. Sadly, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is still hospitalized after her attempted assassination by crazed gunman, Jared Lee Loughner. Although her name has been "floated" as a possible candidate, Giffords may be unable to or unwilling to run. Reportedly, a "recent poll showed Palin and Ms. Giffords as the leading candidates for the seat."
If Sarah Palin does indeed throw her hat into the ring in Arizona, at least it will put an end to speculation about her attempting a presidential run in 2012. If she wins a U.S. Senate seat, at least she'll get some much-needed experience under her belt before attempting once again to climb to the pinnacle of the American political ladder. Unless she quits. Or unless a more lucrative reality show comes calling.
Oh well, at least she'll be able to see Mexico from her new house.
Stay tuned.
© Hope Carson
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 57
In fact, the beef killing industry is worse from what I've read and heard.
Vegetarianism In America
The report begins/summarizes:
"The just-released “Vegetarianism in America†study, published by Vegetarian Times (vegetariantimes.com), shows that 3.2 percent of U.S. adults, or 7.3 million people, follow a vegetarian-based diet. Approximately 0.5 percent, or 1 million, of those are vegans, who consume no animal products at all."
Folks are of course free to select their own diets, but the prevalence of those who eschew meats or all animal-base foods, remains very small.
Furthermore, a sizeable element of the vegetarian population are those for whom it is part of their religious practice.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with you about Palin, yours is a well-written essay. One doesn't see many pieces that have logical flow, coherency and clarity here. I have my own issues with her politics, which have to do with her "sanctity of life" views in light of the torture and massacre of thousands of "original dogs" in her state, which she ordered. Officially, the state calls it aerial shooting. But that is another story. Congratulations on a well-crafted post.
The conterminous 48 States have a surplus coyote problem that closely mirrors the perennial wolf-problem in Alaska.
To address the coyote problem, both state & federal agencies run programs to poison, trap, hunt, and shoot them from airplanes.
The coyote killing dwarfs the Alaska wolf-cull.
Arizona has some fabulous housing-investment opportunities. If one has been bucking the trend lately by hauling an unusual amount of income ... one has to get some good financial/tax advice, and do something smart with that money.
Alaska is an unhandy location from which to run a national campaign, and if one were planning on running for the White House, then getting a base established in Arizona would be quite sensible.
Arizona is "her". A great many folks there relate well to Palin, and she relates to them.
There are weaknesses in the Senate seat idea/rumor. This would have been a relatively easy decision to have made, quite a ways back. There would be relatively little reason to keep the plan secret ... as there is, with a White House run.
So ... while it is possible that Palin is going to take Hillary Clinton's example and accept a shoo-in Senate seat, while planning a big-chair attempt further down the road ... that does strike me as a rather conventional path for the normally unconventional Palin.
Palin is obviously very good at keep all kinds of things going, without having to be 'locked in' to a particular elected position. She doesn't need to be an AZ Senator, to pursue national goals ... and it could even be seen as 'in the way'.
Possible ... but it doesn't have good ring to it.
Even though I would love to see "Senator Palin" at some point if it's ever necessary for her to pigeonhole herself ... I also agree totally with your assessment here.
And at this point it is not necessary ...
"And at this point it is not necessary ... "
That's the deal. HRC, despite her political cred, had never been elected or served as nuthin'.
Many/most ... as a strong rule ... publically active folks, without being the occupant of some official elected station, simply "disappear" PDQ.
Which Sarah has not ... much to the chagrin of many a poor soul. ;>
You are correct. And another interesting fact to add to the discussion is that wolves are blamed for 50% more livestock kill than they are responsible for. There are at least five other predators that are often mistaken for wolves, one being the coyote. I make two points, basically, concerning wolves. One is that aerial shooting of any animal is an atrocity, and has been rejected by hundreds of wildlife biologists, as well as hundreds, if not thousands of hunters. Hunters have refused to take part in that practice, citing the Ethics of the Chase doctrine. When wolves, or any other animal need to be "controlled," it should at least be done in a humane manner. The second point is that the gray wolf is not just any animal. The gray wolf is the original dog, and the exclusive ancestor of our dogs. They are the same species; dividing them into two species was a mistake, reputable scientists now say. More important, these animals likely "taught" us to hunt, saved hundreds of thousands of human lives, and shaped our civilization in many significant ways. When people realize who the gray wolf is, and they actually watch videos of aerial shooting (although I recommend caution if he/she is a dog lover; the images are sickening), they will realize, on a visceral level, what is being done to our longtime ally. There are so many myths about this animal, and she has been so vilified, that it will be difficult to undo the misinformation. But educational foundations such as Living with Wolves are doing their best. I would simply like to see a more rational discussion of this, and I am very grateful for your balanced and fact-based answer. Good day to you....
You make a number of points & assertions, in which I share a contrasting interest. In my response(s), I will aim to make at least a token effort to tie into the actual subject of Hope Carson's Post ... which we should do even as we use her article as a stepping-stone to other topics. :)
Shooting animals from an airplane is generally banned, simply because it is so much more effective & efficient. Those who remain on the ground are severely out-competed.
Once we decide to shoot an animal, it makes no difference to the animal where we fire the bullet from. It is no more an "atrocity" to kill an animal from the air, than it is to do so from the ground.
We ban aerial hunting, not on the grounds that it's 'awful', but because hunters in planes have the ability to wipe out the resource.
Actually, shooting qualifies as a relatively humane way to kill an animal. With a modicum of skill & practice, a modern hunting bullet typically dispatches a target quite abruptly. Not 100%, but a lot better than other methods.
Will Palin's move to Arizona spread aerial hunting techniques beyond Alaska, 'contaminating' new territory? Well, no: AZ maintains a fleet of airplanes for this purpose, and teams of specially-trained pilots & marksmen, and has done so since airplanes became available.
Arizona - and the Federal agencies - also maintain & use airplanes to hunt humans ... although they are not usually shot from the air.
Lastly, on aerial practices: airplanes are a godsend for all manner of wildlife management and Conservation, apart from culling pests. Without them, wildlife science as we know it would be markedly less well developed, or capable.
=====
Early humans plainly became successful big-game hunters, several hundred thousand years before they partnered up with wolves, and created the dog from them.
Furthermore, humans became hunters in regions of the world that did not have wolves.
=====
The assertion that, "the gray wolf is not just any animal", should be accepted as a sentiment akin to other quasi-religious perceptions.
Advocates of many species of animals have preceded wolf-advocates down this same dead-end road ... and thereby have already ruined it for those who would try the same thing with wolves.
Wolves certainly are 'just another animal' ... although personally, I balk at "deprecating" any species. They should be handled using the same guidelines that pertain to other species & populations. Somebody wrote a book, from which folks like quote that, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Isn't that clue enough to where the notion of declaring one species "not just another animal" leads us?
Palin's support of aerial culling of excess wolves in Alaska may put the practice on firmer footing in other states of the Union ... but her move to Arizona and her national influence won't 'spread' aerial shooting methods elsewhere, because fleets of such airplanes & shooters are already operating, all across the country.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, once again. You make some good points. I understand your point about keeping the discussion to Rachel’s topic. But since I have no other way of responding to this, I will answer here for now. I maintain my view that aerial shooting of any animal is an atrocity. I have seen the videos and they don't lie. It is neither quick, nor painless in many situations. Wolves are hit in the hindquarters, then the legs, then the neck.....all while time is going by. Then airplanes have to circle back. More time. Then they are shot again, often in non-lethal areas. The shooters may be marksmen, but they are operating from a moving, vibrating platform and are targeting animals running at up to 35 mph. Who could make that kill shot? If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't believe that humans could do this to the animal that is known as the closest to human beings in six social categories. If the general population saw these videos of animals looking much like Siberian Huskies, I believe the practice would be banned. In 1971, the Congress did ban aerial shooting, but they botched the job. There were so many loopholes, that the states gleefully jumped through them. I do not know if aerial shooting was banned because it was non-competitive. I have always read that states regard it as a separate "management" practice that has nothing to do with commercial or sport hunting. So I will have to look into that.
As to hunting methods, wolves have existed on earth for millions of years. There was much time for human beings to copy their methods, which many top scientists believe we did. Even if humans developed similar methods on their own, it doesn't prove that they didn't copy wolves in other places. One thing we can be certain of is that wolves didn't copy us! Regardless, that view does not even come close to what this animal has meant to humans in terms of its lifesaving instincts. It is not dogs that have been with us for the last 15,000 years, it was the domesticated wolf. That is why I say we owe a debt to the gray wolf. Not for any sentimental reasons. She is not a deity. She is an innocent, social, highly intelligent animal being scapegoated for economic and political purposes. All you have to do is read Alaska's web site to discover massive contradictions in their philosophy regarding wolves. The Eskimos do not complain about wolves in those articles. They complain about the tourist industry that is ruining their lifestyles. Alaska celebrates the wolf in calendars, tourist guides and videos, and then brutalizes them behind the scenes. Finally, Alaska flatly states that the "Ethics of the Chase" does not apply to it. Why not? I would love to hear someone explain that. Selective ethics is the beginning of the end of a solid moral framework. That kind of thinking inevitably leads to a government saying it is exempt from laws that pertain to citizens.
Finally, the so-called scientific basis for reducing predator population to reduce prey population is flawed, according to internationally known wildlife biologists. That applies to wild herds, of course, not livestock. But even there, and I have to restate this, the wolf is only responsible for 50% of what she/he is blamed for. The vilification of the wolf continues. It is overkill, by a long shot. If we are to take a realistic view, the wolf would not stand out so. This animal has been unfairly portrayed in literature and in the popular mind. And it is those distortions that have led to the needless killing of many of these animals.
For sure, I will defend & uphold your Rights & prerogatives as a citizen, to have and hold and communicate your own opinion and judgments ... on the matter of aerial wolf kills; what is & isn't an atrocity, etc.
Of course, an advocacy video is intended & designed to display aerial shooting in the worst possible light. That is understood.
It takes 'some' extra training & practice, to do aerial culling well, but nothing that isn't readily achieved by people of normal ability. An airplane has large gyroscopic & kinetic forces that make it extremely stable, under the right 'air' conditions. That is the main factor: teams must wait for the air to 'settle down'. (It does not have to be dead-calm, just smooth & even, free of turbulence.)
The airplane immediately became the dominant weapon of war, a century ago. Aviators & Generals rapidly determined that one can shoot a firearm very accurately from an airplane. Then came World War I, and even these extremely rudimentary aircraft proved their capability & value.
=====
Missed shots do happen. When an animal has been wounded, then it becomes the priority to finish it off. Under these circumstances, the best, cleanest shot has already passed. Both the pilot and the shooter must suddenly engage in less-than-ideal efforts to prevent the wounded wolf from escaping. Thus, they maneuver & shoot rapidly, maybe several shots, maybe doing fly-arounds. Nobody wants that to happen. They train to avoid it ... but they also train to 'get the job done' and not leave a wounded wolf, when a miss occurs.
When the occasional wounding-shot does occur, the wolf is then usually dead within span of seconds. If fly-arounds are needed, minutes. Lost wounded wolves are rare.
=====
"There was much time for human beings to copy [wolves' hunting] methods, which many top scientists believe we did."
1.) We know that chimpanzees hunt in organized & sophisticated ways, and that they lay plans to stalk & kill other chimps. Hunting is a universal phenomenon, and primates are commonly well-equipped for it, both behaviorally & physically.
2.) If you have a link to "top scientists" espousing that humans picked up hunting from wolves, I would be interested to see it.
=====
The "Ethics of the Chase" is not what most practical hunting is about. Hunting is most-basically about 'meat on the table'. Or fur, or pest-removal, predator control, etc. Or, under the aegis of 'sport', the driving 'ethos' is recreation - as defined primarily by the participant.
'Sporting' forms of hunting are derivatives of "Subsistence" hunting, which is now solidly institutionalized across Alaska. Formal Modern Subsistence (by Act of Congress) resembles 'original' hunting, and is mainly 'results-oriented'.
Rules & laws for hunting, fishing, fur, etc are driven by "Kings Game" philosophy, rather than a more academic or intellectual ethos. The State "owns" the Game, and "manages" it for sustained yield. There are recreational uses, and commercial uses ... and nowadays, in Alaska, a very important subsistence use (distinct from the other two).
What really drives recreational fishing rules, for example, is the money that is spent buying expensive boats & motors, hiring guides and renting motel rooms & cabins. A similar 'ethos' is behind the rules pertaining to other (sport-oriented/dedicated) animal resources.
=====
I agree that 'free-floating' fears and disproportional reactions among the public are behind a historic negative view of the wolf ... tho more so in the past. In Alaska, the desire to optimize the moose & caribou harvest puts the wolf on the short end of the stick. Wild meat is actually a big deal there; in terms of real diet, culture and business.
Alaska does not persecute grizzlies (which also take some big game), because they are a very valuable guided-hunt. Out-of-state sport hunters drop big bucks to take an AK grizzly ... and the State has assiduously managed the species for this purpose 'forever'. Even to the extent of reducing the access of Residents to the grizzly harvest.
If fears and self-interests translated into a push to eliminate the wolf from the landscape & ecosystem (which seems highly unlikely), then I would opposed that goal. But society has moved past extermination projects, northern wolf populations are very robust ... and society heavily persecutes coyotes in the temperate zone jurisdictions, which acts to help 'normalize' northern wolf-reduction programs.
Alaskans live with the presence of very bold, enormous grizzly bears capable of great ferocity ... even within the City. That they are acting out of an irrational fear of wolves is a difficult case to make, since they "celebrate" much scarier beasts in their midst.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments. As much as I abhor aerial shooting, I found your description of the mechanics of it interesting. It struck me though as nice in theory, but not always demonstrated in practice (based on what I have seen). In the films I saw, it looked as though the shooters must be deliberately avoiding the kill shot (obviously that is not the case). I've never seen so many non-lethal bullet strikes. I will concede that on a good day, the sequences I saw might not be typical, but that does not justify the practice to me. My whole point is that political, economic, and any other interests are trumped by ethical ones. Also, I am not only arguing for the wolf. I am saying that it is bad for us to demonstrate unmitigated speciesism to our children. The take home message from aerial shooting is that if a thing can be done, it should be done. I am sure you have heard the Gandhi quote: "The Greatness of a Nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." We fall far short of that edict....and, of course, not only in Alaska, but in all of the 50 states.
Aerial shooting is about expediency and cost. It has nothing to do with what is right. It is even questionable science. "As the complexity and unique features of real-world ecosystems have become more evident, it has also become clear that simple platitudes about whether or not wolves control prey population are naive." (David Mech, 1987). It doesn't come from a much higher authority that that.
But I also want to make clear that I don't blame the individuals. I am sure they do this in the spirit of aiding their state, even though many of their hunter colleagues disagree with what they are doing. It is the state that institutes policy and gives it its stamp of authority. It is the state that should be setting an example for its citizens. So I couldn't agree with you more: it is all about money. The more I research it, the more evidence I find on that. BTW, some sources I have on the imitation of hunting techniques are:
Ethnic Women, A Multiple Status Reality, Marcia Segal.
Co-Evolution of Humans and Canids
Wolfgang Schleid, Pulitzer Prize Winner, History
Konrad Lorenz Institute for Behavorial Studies, Vienna, and Duke University
Wolves, Behavior, Ecology and Conservation.
Steven H. Fritts, Robert O. Stephenson, Robert D. Hayes, and Luigi Boitani.
"Among Indians of the U.S. western plains, the wolf personified craft in war.....Boys were told to imitate the wolf's habit of pausing to look back at its trail, even when running for its life," (Mails, 1995).
One thing there appears to be general agreement on is that the Navajo, the Cheyenne and the Quileute Indians all emulated the wolf in their hunting techniques. They studied her, and they endeavored to imitate her. That alone is enough to acknowledge our species' debt to her, in my opinion.
And on the lighter side, if primates are distinguished by their sophisticated hunting techniques, and wolves use the same techniques (ala the who taught who debate)......does that mean that wolves, on some level, are as smart as primates? And if that is so, shouldn't they be treated better? It is just a stray thought.....
Also, I also agree with you that even in the early 20th century when we performed our wolf genocide, it wasn't motivated by fear, it was motivated by money.
Sarah Palin tried to justify aerial shooting on the basis of states' rights. I suppose that means that if Kansas started to hang cats instead of euthanizing them, that neither a citizen of another state nor the federal government, in her view, could speak a word to that state. The real reason, I believe, she used states' rights, is that aerial shooting can't be defended on ethical grounds. If we really think states' rights are inviolate, then we shouldn't have a nation.
Great discussing this topic with you. I have learned a lot. Best wishes.....
Plus, she could hunt javelina and coyotes. Javelina are tasty, not as tasty as caribou, but tasty just the same.
Yes. I think I do love that idea.
Wish she'd come to Texas, but Arizona may need her more than we do.
From the article: Oh well, at least she'll be able to see Mexico from her new house.
That may or may not be true. How close is Scottsdale to the border, and how many stories tall is the new house?
Ahhh well, ... just in case Scottsdale isn't close enough to the border and/or the new house is not tall enough for her to be able to see Mexico from it, what Sarah actually said in regard to Russia and Alaska would be just as true, valid, and appropriate about Arizona and Mexico no matter where she lives or how tall the house is. ie: "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." And take my word for it because I've been there, you can certainly see Mexican land from land located in Arizona.
Confused? Might be because you've confused what a commedienne said someone said, with what the politician actually said. I quoted Sarah above. Here is what Tina Fey (the comdeienne) said: "I can see Russia from my backyard." Sarah never said it.
It's a small thing but, continuuing to use Fey's quote instead of Sarah's as if Sarah said it shows ... well, I don't know what it shows except that maybe taking one's 'news' quotes from a comedy program might not be such a good thing.
But in Fairbanks, AK, an average of 50 moose are struck & killed, each winter.
In Anchorage, they kill about 250 a year on the streets.
The Alaska Railroad, running between Anchorage & Fairbanks, kills an average 750 moose each winter. In especially snowy winters, it runs up about 1,500.
They salvage road kill moose in AK, in an organized way. It's cold, which helps. They got crews & equipment, kinda like volunteer fire departments, they go gather them up, process the meat and take it to the distribution network.
And of course, there is a certain number of unfortunate humans who clip the legs out from under a tall, 1,000+ animal and have it come right through the windshield onto them.
She'll have a lot of support there in conservative country.
She sure doesn't look like, I'm sure she doesn't smell like but she sure acts like a grizzly mama.
If there's one thing she has is balls, fearless it seems. Or is it just nervy blind ambition? Sister to The Donald, with a lust for what--power, being on TV?
Arizona is a perfect fit.
Thank you very much for your kind compliments on my post. I appreciate them.
Hope C. :)
"Palin has sent out some 400,000 direct-mail fundraising letters targeting voters in several early primary states – a move sure to get pundits’ tongues wagging. Also, on Sunday news broke that she may have purchased a home in Arizona, which could provide her a “Lower 48†base not only for a presidential bid but also a possible Senate campaign in 2012, both Fox News and the Arizona Republic reported."
That reduces the odds that she is after the Senate seat for Arizona.
McCain & Palin were of course actually doing well, closing in decently on Obama ... when the economic collapse decisively 'threw' the contest to Obama. So McCain knows what really lost him the race.
Still, they will both avoid being type-cast by their roles in the 2008 events ... just as Tina Fey declines to let herself be defined by her contribution.
I bet the tabloids say she couldn't stay away from "McCain" .... etc.
I really thought her political career was over when she quit being Governor. Who knows maybe she got sick of the cold...
Now that she made some money from the book, why not buy an Arizona home?
Proving that there's a first time for everything.
I was eating something slightly unusual from the wild, while my nephew (a good-sized boy) made faces, gagging noises ... and munched on his egg sandwich.
Finally I asked, "Do you know where eggs come from"?
He paused very briefly, then announced, "The back of the store".
"The back of something, alright", I clarified.
Inasmuch as there is no part time fishing industry, no once a year Iditarod, no seasonal snowmobile racing, no part time oil consultant jobs and no current openings for a 1st Dude in the State of Arizona, what, I ask you, what is to become of the 1st Dude and his quest for part time employment.
I know, I know, he will still be needed as a baby sitter, a house mother and a stay at home mom. But should he follow Mom Ma Grizzly to Arizona, even those chores will not be able to relieve the agony he will certainly feel because of his lost in out-of-house part time employment.
Does no one care, is the 1st Dude to become essentually incognito, are there no plans for his continued part time employment in Arizona, will he be forgotten and lost in the shuffle from Polar Bear Land to Rattle Snake Land, Oh woe is he, Oh woe is he........The Saga of Sarah continues.......
I have squinted at many pictures of him in public, and he gives no sign of merely "holding up"; "grinning & bearing it". He is instead actively thriving, validating the core aspects of his personality that he acquired at too early an age to have any conscious memory of.
That's my theory, anyway. And indeed, the 'Cuda selected him, substantially for these attributes ... most likely unconsciously.
Interesting observations & questions tho, Scott!