Thursday, March 26, 2009

Continuing About Alaskan Evita's Arctic Cat Gate Corruption Case

Well I have read some of the lame defenses that people are tossing up about Succubus Sarah's awful judgment in letting herself appear in public like a corporate-rented billboard.

And it seems that one of the favorite lame-o excuses is some variation of the following theme:

"So is she supposed to cut the logos off of all of her clothes, and walk around wearing what amounts to a glorified doily?"

Alaska Democrat Wants Sarah Palin to Take it All Off.

No, you imbecile. What she should do is not wear corporate logo clothing at all, no matter if it is from a business partner of a family member, and/or a direct or indirect vendor of the Government of the State of Alaska, and/or any real or legal person who could potentially seek or reap any benefit or gain from Alaskan Evita's wearing (or use) of such gear.

Here is my presentation of the case. If Alaskan Evita and her husband really were ethical people, Todd would not necessarily have had to give up his hobby, but he would have had to give up larger sponsorships. That is the real keystone of the ethics problem here, the fact that Todd's hobby is one where it is routine for people who participate in such pursuits to basically rent their body as advertising, in order to get money or stuff to help them do the activity. That is at least a quid pro quo, under normal circumstances.

Now it is not required to have sponsors and rent the body out as a billboard, but that is the easy way to get funding. So even if she never appeared as a rented billboard herself, her husband's relationship with these people is a conflict of interest.

And what makes the situation worse is when she puts on the gear, she becomes a rental advertising space too, in addition to being financially or otherwise materially intertwined, either personally or through a family member, with some corporate or other kind of business or favor seeking interest. Either way you slice it, it is unethical.

Now if there was some way that Todd could have either self-financed or perhaps gained support for his hobby where the individual contributions were so small that he was not truly beholden to, or in the semi-employ of anyone in a way that could have caused a conflict of interest or quid pro quo? Then there would not have been any problem. But if he could not have done that years ago when Alaskan Evita won her office (as by now, the damage has been done; at this point it is closing the doors after the horses have run out of the stable) he really should have given up his hobby.

He would not have been the first spouse of a politician who had to make a sacrifice for the other's career. The fact he did not, and that they did not figure out he needed to, just shows these people are basically corrupt.

This one ain't a hard call. This is a genuine conflict of interest, and there has actually been quid pro quo, and the Palin family has materially benefited from the corporation, and the corporation has received benefit from Alaskan Evita. Oh, and she did get the bitchin' gear. Hell I saw a pic today of one of their kids dressed up in Team Arctic gear too. Did the company send coats and snow suits and other gear for the whole family? I can't honestly say,"Yew Betcha." But I am guessing, it is likely that there were a few boxes of Arctic Cat swag and gear delivered to the Palin Household, down there in the Mat-Su Valley.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Add to Technorati Favorites