Todd Is My Favorite Palin

Jesse Walker | November 3, 2008

For those who prefer history to hysteria, Bill Kauffman tells the tale of the Alaskan Independence Party.

Comments

|11.3.08 @ 10:53AM|#

For those who prefer history to hysteria, Bill Kauffman tells the tale of the Alaskan Independence Party.

Ooooooh! Jesse use the word hysteria. He must be a sexist.

|11.3.08 @ 10:57AM|#

Excuse my semi-thread-jack.
Now that McCain knows he's going to lose, seems he's reverted to telling his old jokes. One is to pretend to confuse libertarians with vegetarians.
As Mrs. Fibber McGee used to say, "'Tain't funny, McGee."

LarryA|11.3.08 @ 11:02AM|#

For those who prefer history to hysteria,

Wow. A whole article for what, a dozen people?

BDB|11.3.08 @ 11:09AM|#

J sub just won right out of the gate.

|11.3.08 @ 11:13AM|#

Didn't the AIP break off from the Party for Alaskan Independence? Splitters!!!

BDB|11.3.08 @ 11:16AM|#

With all the weird politicians they send us (Gravel, Stevens, Palin) combined with the pork they suck out of us in "return", Alaska can go as far as I'm concerned.

|11.3.08 @ 11:24AM|#

Donor and parasite states.

Alaska unsurprisingly leads the parasite list. For all of you bitching about supporting poor old Michigan, check it out. Per capita, it's the 5th biggest donor.

Kaiser|11.3.08 @ 11:26AM|#

"With all the weird politicians they send us (Gravel, Stevens, Palin) combined with the pork they suck out of us in "return", Alaska can go as far as I'm concerned."


Then we would have a massive O.C.D. riot on our hands. Un-even number of states would just cause chaos. Then again, as Bill Maher said on Friday, we could just have North and South Dakota merge into Dakota.

|11.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#

J Sub D,

We also tell Alaska they where they can drill their oil and what they can and can't do with their land. How about his deal, no more federal subsidies and in return the people of Alaska decide who can drill and do what in ANWR and every other bit of federal land up there. Yeah, they get some federal tax money, but that doesn't begin to make up for how badly we fuck them with our hairshirt environmental and land use regulations.

FrBunny|11.3.08 @ 11:29AM|#

Didn't the AIP break off from the Party for Alaskan Independence? Splitters!!!

Recycling a joke in the comments to a story that links to where you used the joke previously?!? For shame, Epi. ;)

(BTW it was funny then, and it's funny now.)

|11.3.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Context, J sub. Context.

Don't get your panties in a wad.

|11.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#

For shame, Epi

What does "shame" mean?

|11.3.08 @ 11:43AM|#

What does "shame" mean?

You felt it that time you couldn't find and sock and licked it off your hands in desperation before your mom came in.

economist|11.3.08 @ 11:44AM|#

I'm fine with Alaska going, as long as Vermont goes, too.

|11.3.08 @ 11:46AM|#

You felt it that time you couldn't find and sock and licked it off your hands in desperation before your mom came in.

No, I just felt less hungry. And besides, my mom was already watching.

|11.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#

John, if you want to argue about the federal government divesting it's land holdings, you'll have to find somebody else to do it with.

Put it all up for bids (over time would maximize the amount received) and if Alaska, the oil companies or Earth First! bids the highest, it's theirs.

How much do you think Camp Pendleton is worth?

|11.3.08 @ 11:55AM|#

Donor and parasite states.

Would it be possible to implement Congressional term limits upon those states that get more than $1.10 per dollar? As a way of protecting the rest of the nation?

|11.3.08 @ 1:13PM|#

Yeah, they get some federal tax money, but that doesn't begin to make up for how badly we fuck them with our hairshirt environmental and land use regulations.

You mean the land-use regulations that every other state lives under and which hit Washington, Oregon, and California just as hard? States that get a sixth of what Alaska does? Alaskans politicians are parasites, John. They use millions in oil money to buy off constituents, then soak the rest of the country when they need infrastructure improvements. Their constituents support them in this.

|11.3.08 @ 1:30PM|#

You mean the land-use regulations that every other state lives under and which hit Washington, Oregon, and California just as hard?

I think the opportunity costs imposed on Alaska by federal land ownership and regulation outstrip the opportunity costs for any other state. There's hundreds of billions or more of oil that's walled off by the feds in Alaska. I don't think any other state can make that claim.

|11.3.08 @ 1:47PM|#

Sorry, but Michael is my favorite Palin.

|11.3.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Have to agree with RC Dean on this one. The benefits Alaska would gain via being able to drill on all their land would far outstrip the loss of any Federal money in an Independence situation. And that's not even counting the potential bonanza they could incur not having to live under federal drug and accounting laws. Alaska could become drug, finance, and natural resource capital of the world.

|11.3.08 @ 4:36PM|#

We also tell Alaska they where they can drill their oil and what they can and can't do with their land. How about his deal, no more federal subsidies and in return the people of Alaska decide who can drill and do what in ANWR and every other bit of federal land up there.

Well, it's not really their land if it's federal land. Thanks to Mr. seward, it's bought and paid for by the DC government. I'd be more than happy to sell the land and the resources for fair market value. It'd probably get rid of quite a bit of the deficit and getting rid of a $5 shortfall for every Alaskan tax dollar would be nice. Plus, it would makeadvertisments for contest deals shorted (now it would only be, "Except Hawaii").

There is zero chance in hell that Alaska would ever be a finance capital.

|11.3.08 @ 4:51PM|#

Thanks to Mr. seward, it's bought and paid for by the DC government.

All land originally belongs to the sovereign, so I don't think this is necessarily special to Alaska.

The real question is why the feds still hold all that land, instead of transferring it to private ownership like most of the other land it originally held.

|11.3.08 @ 11:06PM|#

The real question is why the feds still hold all that land, instead of transferring it to private ownership like most of the other land it originally held.

Because until oil was discovered, no one wanted it. Once oil was discovered, the land had strategic value to the government.