Sarah Palin Emails

Does the tail wag the dog?

Where are all the lib­er­als now?

Seems like all the news cov­er­age did noth­ing and went no where.

When will be begin to see the lib­er­als emails, that would pro­duce a lot of scan­dals, or is that not of inter­est to the media?

Why should it mat­ter about the Sarah Palin emails, and who real­ly cares any­way?

This issue brings to light a lot of ques­tions about the designs of a poten­tial­ly biased and out of con­trol lib­er­al agen­da that alleged­ly some peo­ple are very con­cerned with. One of the prob­lems we face is that in many instances the media is tak­ing only one side in the polit­i­cal struc­ture of this coun­try.

This cre­ates a dis­par­i­ty and it cre­ates a false sense of fact.

This is a prob­lem for many rea­sons, the most impor­tant of which is that the media is in some cas­es deceiv­ing the Amer­i­can pub­lic into believ­ing a cer­tain thing, when facts may not sup­port that way of think­ing.

It is dis­turb­ing because of the way the FTC is begin­ning to define com­mer­cials and what is con­sumed by the pub­lic, in some cas­es it might be viewed as a crime in the future, if an alleged biased media com­pa­ny pub­lish­es an opin­ion or if that news com­pa­ny engages in what could be con­sid­ered decep­tive speech then we might have a con­di­tion where cen­sor­ship might be prefer­able to the obvi­ous bias that has become a large part of what Amer­i­cans have come to expect from the news.

When you con­sid­er the impli­ca­tions, that are present here you have to think seri­ous­ly about what it means when a news orga­ni­za­tion takes an inter­est in only one par­ty in this case the alleged biased media have show an inter­est in for­mer Gov­er­nor Sarah Pal­in’s emails, con­sid­er­ing the issues of pri­va­cy attached here, when will see demo­c­rat emails being scru­ti­nized, as seri­ous­ly as Sarah Palin is now.

So, this real­ly opens up the sub­ject of how long it will be before all politi­cians are sub­ject to hav­ing their emails read long after they are out of office and for what pur­pose would it be?

Why would it make a news sto­ry?

Unless there is some equal dis­clo­sure of demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­er­nors or oth­er can­di­dates that are run­ning or might run for office, notice how there seems to be a lack of juris­dic­tion here.

Sarah Palin is no longer the Gov­er­nor of Alas­ka, she is not run­ning for any office, she is a pri­vate cit­i­zen.

So on what terms did this mass expo­sure of pri­vate mate­r­i­al occur?

Could you be next, might you have at some point in your past had a pri­vate email dis­cus­sion, did you have the right to expect you would have pri­va­cy?

Should we start to allow full dis­clo­sure of all pub­lic offi­cials emails?

If not why not?

Because I am sure that the emails of demo­c­ra­t­ic elect­ed offi­cials would be equal­ly inter­est­ing to the media.

Should we not have access to all these emails of every elect­ed offi­cial?

If not then why not and if why not then why Sarah Palin?

What makes her emails sub­ject to the free­dom of infor­ma­tion act?

If Sarah Palin had no rea­son­able expec­ta­tion of pri­va­cy then how can any­one have any expec­ta­tion of pri­va­cy, should we now begin to stop using the inter­net, because it has been sub­ject­ed to a dou­ble stan­dard of jurispru­dence pru­dence?

(yes, it is total­ly sub­jec­tive and that is the object of this arti­cle)

I find it inter­est­ing here that we can dis­close emails when its Sarah Palin but oth­er pub­lic offi­cials that per­haps are alleged­ly biased along with the media are not sub­ject to those same stan­dards.

I find it very inter­est­ing that the media thinks that so many peo­ple out there are not smart enough to fig­ure this out, per­haps they will begin to take notice when the elec­tion of 2012 does not come out the way they think it will or more pre­cise­ly the way they have hoped to influ­ence the out­come of the elec­tion.

One thing remains clear, no one is being fooled.