I have once mentioned and quoted the feedback of one of my former classmates who lives in Alaska, and his thoughts on Sarah Palin.  Well this email if from one of his friends, who is a school Principal and has experience working with and advising Governors and others in Alaska.  This is the email he sent to those who were asking him about Sarah Palin.  

It's enlightening for sure.  

Please enjoy and share!

Hi Friends,

My brother sent this note regarding his impressions about  Sarah Palin
(McCain's baffling VP choice).  I thought it was interesting  coming from
his inside-Alaska perspective, and worth passing along.  For  those who
don't know my brother,  he is a principal of a school up in  Alaska,
where he and his wife also teach.  THey've been Alaskan transplants  for
about 10 years.

Alice

From: Peter     Date: August 29,  2008 11:58:15 PM PDT
To:

Good evening, lots of friends and relatives  have been asking me (as an
Alaskan) what I think of Sarah Palin, our  Governor, and new choice for
McCain as a VP candidate.

Here it  goes:

This pick floored me.  Sarah Palin is a nice person.  I've met her,  I've
even talked to her for a few minutes at a principal's conference  a
couple of years ago.  She has lots going for her superficially.    She
speaks from the heart, like a spitfire mother; she can even be sort  of
funny sometimes.  She is quite beautiful;  athletic, and has  that
radiant glow of someone who actually spends time doing things  outside.
Unlike many politicians, she has lived a 'real life' and done  things
that few living and working in DC could ever do....like dipnettin'  fish,
shootin' stuff and eating it out on the tundra, and havin' 5  kids.

Personally, I'd never vote for her. She has an extremely simple  view of
the world.  I don't even think she has ever been abroad.  As  governor
she has repeatedly shown us that she is unable to grasp the demands  of
leadership.  She is very prone to cronyism of the worst kind.   Every
cabinet level political appointment she has made she has  over-ridden
suggestions of our state advisory boards, and instead promoted  those who
had granted her direct political favors.  Not that other  politicians
don't do this, they do, but most of them are able to balance  their
appointments to ensure that at least a few people with real skill  and
experience are running big state agencies.

She also has been  unable to pay attention to her Alaskan constituency.
Personally, I've written  several of our previous gov's and been asked to
comment publicly on education  policy.  All the previous gov's have
always acknowledged that contribution,  criticism or comment; sometimes
by direct reply, or at least by that of a  staff member.  Palin's office
has been a zone of silence.  Not I, nor one  person I know commenting has
ever gotten any sort of reply.   Her claim of  running an open or
transparent government is totally false; the public simply  has no role
in her administration.

Her previous claim to fame was  being mayor of Wasilla, a growing town
about 40 minutes from Anchorage of  about 15,000 people.  Wasilla is a
hellhole, even by Alaskan standards, where  there are plenty of hellhole
towns and villages. Wasilla is an ugly place  that shows a complete
absence of planning, design, or sense of public  vision.  Gov't agencies
and services are completely overrun in this town;  things are so bad that
they can't even track their population or build  schools in the right
place, because most parts of the town don't require  building permits, so
the only clue about where people are settling are  utility receipts.
Imagine trying to be an emergency responder in this kind of  place:
Houses don't just catch on fire in Wasilla, they burn to the  ground,
because by the time the fire department has figured out which road  to
take (no signs) or whose house it is (no directory), the place is  done
for.  Palin was mayor this town for at least 2 terms
before being  elected gov. a year and a half ago.

Her moral sense is simplistic and not  inclusive.  She is the sort of
person who is used to using their 'faith' to  divide and isolate minority
groups of human beings instead of uniting them.   To her credit as Gov.
she has kept out of this arena pretty well, but when in  comfortable
company (i.e the Matanuska Valley Republican Women's Club), she  lets her
moral cat out of the bag.

I will do what I can to ensure her  defeat and that of her running mate
as well.  :)  Please share this  information with those who can use it
well.

Cheers, Pete

There's more...

Now I have an even better idea of what those fired US Attorneys went through.  Why?  Because the US Justice Department discriminated against me because I'm a Democrat:

From the AP:

Report: Justice Dept. passed over Dems, liberals

WASHINGTON - Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.

In one case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In another, a Georgetown University student who had previously worked for a Democratic senator and congressman didn't make the cut.

I have good reason to believe that I was one of those "top law students" evidently passed over.

As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to department officials that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.

But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal -- and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.

The political filtering of applicants ebbed for the three years between 2003 and 2005, the inquiry found, then resumed by 2006.

Of 602 Honors candidates that year, 150 were identified as liberal -- including 83 who were cut. Five of 28 self-described conservatives were rejected.

I made it through two rounds of interviews for entrance into DOJ's Honors Program in 2002.  I was told I was a finalist for a position, until in the final round I was interviewed by some grey-bearded guy who I had previously never met and who I was told had final say over all Honors Program hires.  There was nothing overly political about the interview, nor did I self identify as a Democrat.  A simple Google search using my name, however, would have easily shown my political allegiances.  Ultimately, they hired someone else.  I'm happy I didn't get the job, as I've found the private sector to be very rewarding professionally (as well as financially).  Still, though, I worked my ass off to get in the door at Justice and am disheartened to find out now, years later, that I may not have been properly judged on my own merits.

I shouldn't worry, though.  I'm sure the crooks responsible are getting what they deserve:

Although federal law prohibits discriminating against government job applicants based on their politics, it's unlikely that any of those involved in the hiring process will be penalized since they no longer work at the department. A Justice official said the department is not considering pressing criminal charges or taking or civil actions against them.

Oh wait.

Disgusting.

You can read the full story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_o n_go_ca_st_pe/justice_inquiry_hiring

There's more...

Many here tout the endorsements the candidates for the Presidency receive.  Ignored in all this chatter, however, are the endorsements the candidates have made.  The latter, I believe, provides a rare view into the priorities, values and judgment of the candidates.  Because susanhu has broached a discussion on Obama's judgment as it relates to his collusion with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the indicted slumlord who owned and operated dilapidated tenements in inner city Chicago, I will revisit a diary I wrote in July on the ethically challenged Illinois politicians Barack Obama endorsed in 2006 and 2007.  Obama, after all, is campaigning on his judgment, an object all of us should scrutinize if we are to cast informed votes in the Democratic primary.

There's more...

Many here tout the endorsements the candidates for the Presidency receive.  Ignored in all this chatter, however, are the endorsements the candidates have made.  The latter provides a rare view into the priorities and values of the candidates.  Because each diary can only accomodate one candidate's endorsements, I will limit my discussion to those made by Barack Obama.

There's more...

A close Bush advisor, controversial among the left but virtually unheard of by anyone else, was appointed to little fanfare and little oversight to a very high-ranking official position during the Republican salad days of Bush's second term. It is now a few years later and now that the political winds have shifted, the official is suddenly implicated in an allegedly unethical behavior which has been apparently going on for some time. The official simultaneously claims that his actions were appropriate and rightful, and that his actions were a "mistake", but the scandal refuses to go away and builds for weeks. Though the official seems untouchable as long as they weather the storm, there are increasing calls for resignation and the list of supporters is, outside the White House, slim. This is all coming to a head this thursday, when the body claiming oversight over the official will meet to discuss his fate.

You probably think I'm talking about Alberto Gonzales, whose purported "no, really, this is your last chance to come and give us testimony that won't be shown the very next day to conflict with e-mail evidence" appearance before Congress was delayed to this thursday due to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

But no, actually, as it turns out, this storyline is double-booked for tomorrow. I'm talking about Paul Wolfowitz:

World Bank directors to meet to settle Wolfowitz's future

WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) - World Bank directors were set to meet Thursday to debate the future of the development lender's embattled president, Paul Wolfowitz, sources said.

The meeting of the 24 executive directors was previously scheduled to discuss the bank's planned development projects, but now will be dominated by a pay and favoritism scandal that has engulfed Wolfowitz.

I think we can expect tomorrow to be an interesting news day.

There's more...