On June 25, 2008, a 5-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reduced a $2.5 million punitive damage award to Alaskan plaintiffs against Exxon Shipping for the damage caused to their livelihoods after the largest environmental catastrophe in history. The case? Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. The environmental catastrophe? The oil leak from the wreck of the Exxon Valdez. The decision infuriated and wounded hundreds of Alaskans whose lawsuits were consolidated into Exxon Shipping, causing great outrage in the state.
Why did this case not immediately come to mind when Katie Couric asked Palin what other Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with?
Is Palin disinterested, stupid, uniformed, or all of the above? Uh...no....
Watch this YouTube clip (h/t peace voter, major assist!) and see what you think.
Still think Palin is stupid? Can't string a coherent sentence together? Has a heavy, shrill accent? (Well, maybe she still has that.)
I've thought that she may have an anxiety problem that causes her memory and articulation abilities to seize up, but a publisher of a well known photography blog who is also a psychologist, corrected me when I suggested anxiety in an email:
She's not anxious. What you are seeing, though, is (often extreme) awkwardness emanating from a woman who is so lightweight as to think she has the depth, and weight, and parity with people and situations far beyond her. The stumbles and trips, then, are a result of that disparity expressing itself. This quality, by the way, can manifest in people with very high or very low intelligence(s).
In a later exchange, he added:
She's often compared to Bush because they share this characteristic. You have to feel more weight to feel the gravity of what you are saying or doing -- and to reflect on it afterwards.
I call this Palin's "Barely Controlled Facade" or "The Tell-Tale Tongue" or, simply, "The Con." I believe, at its root, this theory considers Palin's shallowness and lack of humility or even serious regard for the issues while focusing on self-advancement. Such a persona requires a fundamental misunderstanding of herself and those she encounters.
But still, Palin's failure to come up with a single U.S. Supreme Court decision she "disagreed with" is mind boggling when you think that Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker is so recent and had such an ill effect on Palin's own constituents.
Why did she fail to bring it up?
Perhaps, more than anything, we are being played in the expectation game. Perhaps showing her secretly cozy relationship with Big Oil is less preferable to looking stupid? Maybe Palin has a notable anxiety issue causing her to block information in stressful situations.Or, maybe, as expressed to me above, Palin cannot uniformly maintain a false facade of parity with the heavyweights with whom she must interact. I recognize that under that logic, Katie Couric is a "heavyweight," but it could be true if we look keenly at the Palin persona.
Maybe all of these labels have some truth?
Is this Survivor or American Idol meets the American political reality? Is Palin a poseur betrayed by a Tell-Tale Tongue? Or craftier with a ratlike cunning? Which Palin will show up for tomorrow’s debate?
I predict she will do well. The threshold is entirely low, she can step right over it with a nominal performance. In other words, unless The Tell-Tale Tongue shows up to play tomorrow, I don’t think she can lose.
I posted a diary last night on the decision, but did it so late at night with disbelief that any governor of Alaska could fail to know of this case. By the way, Keith Olbermann mentioned the story tonight, though I don't know if he got it from the diary (or the emails I sent him about it, ahem). Anyway, few saw it and I repost the basic content of that diary incorporated with this one. Here's a little edited background from the original diary:
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker was handed down by the Supreme Court only three months ago, on June 25, 2008.
June 25, 2008
The oil spill caused by the drunk captain of the Exxon Valdez was one of the world's most horrific and destructive oils spills in history. Oil leaking after the ship ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound resulted in enormous loss of wildlife and millions and millions of dollars in damages to Alaskan residents who lived and worked on shores of the Sound. From Wikipedia:
In 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on [the Prince William Sound] Bligh Reef after leaving Valdez, [Alaska] causing a large oil spill, which resulted in massive damage to the environment, including the killing of around 250,000 seabirds, nearly 3,000 sea otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles and up to 22 killer whales.
Not something any adult resident of the state would forget, but just in case, a little more from Wikipedia
the March 24, 1989 oil spill in which the tanker, bound for Washington, USA, captained by Joseph Hazelwood, hit Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled an estimated 10.8 million US gallons (40.9 million liters) of crude oil. This has been recorded as one of the largest spills in U.S. history and one of the largest ecological disasters.[1]
Alaskans residents and business people sued and won approximately $500 million in compensatory damages and a $5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon agreed to pay 75% of the $500 million and sought remittur (court reduction of the damages) of the punitive damages. After a years long journey the Ninth Circuit resulting in a reduction to $2.5 billion in punitive damages, the case was heard by the Supreme Court earlier this year. In their June 25, 2008 5-3 decision, the Court
rejected a $2.5 billion punitive damages order against Exxon Mobil Corp., ruling that the amount was excessive and should have been in line with the actual harm caused after the Exxon supertanker Valdez ran aground off the coast of Alaska in 1989, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound.
The Court reasoned that punitive damages should not exceed the amount of actual damages attributable to the incident. Luckily, the decision was limited to maritime cases and not general negligence cases, however, that fact alone could explain Palin's failure to mention it (what self respecting republican wants to argue with lowering punitive damage awards against Big Oil or corporations. That's if she's thought about it which, I feel safe in saying, she has not.
The plaintiffs (consolidated under Baker) were Alaskan residents (mostly small businesses) who were damaged and, in some case, economically devastated by the spill. The wildlife killed, injured, and maimed could not afford counsel and didn't sue.
Clearly Palin knew about this. Are we being expertly played? Or has McCain placed an anxiety-prone, medication needing amateur in the line of succession to the presidency? Does "over her head" no longer include intelligence?
If you have any remaining doubts about Palin's abilities, take a look at this debate footage from Palin's run for Governor of Alaska posted on Huffington Post:
Palin is neither nervous, stupid, or, seemingly, uninformed in this clip. She has talent as a debater. Of course, it would be important to point out here that she is debating with people known to her on issues known to her in an environment known to her.
The Obama campaign is not blowing smoke up our collective assess when they claim she's talented and that this debate will not be the blow out we've been crowing out.
Let's end the Palin is a dope narrative now.
Various Alaskan ducks, whales, fish, otters, waterfowl, eagles, and seals all thank you for your time.
Earmark Bonus!: Think Progress has an interesting post on "tax earmarks" present in the Bailout Bill and uh-oh, looky here:
One of the additions — which some conservatives are labeling "pork" and "tax earmarks" — is a six-page measure protecting Alaskans from having to pay taxes on rewards from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, starting on page 301:
SEC. 504. INCOME AVERAGING FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXXON VALDEZ LITIGATION [...]
(c) (1)...no portion of qualified settlement income received by a qualified taxpayer shall be treated as self-employed income.
(2)...no portion of qualified settlement income received by a qualified taxpayer shall be treated as wages.
Despite Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) oft-repeated vow to "veto every single bill with earmarks" and to "make them famous," he has indicated he will vote for today’s bill, apparently earmarks and all. This case seems to be yet another time that McCain’s anti-earmark rhetoric can’t match his actions.
And on it goes.