I still have a couple of problems with your articles. Before getting to that, however, let me say that I might well have a problem with Palin's approach to this, if it leads where I think I could. But I still have some reservations. It is also getting late, and perhaps I missed something from your articles.

First, your stuff starts out suggesting that the GW student conclusively linked Palin to the policy. Then, at the end, it says well, maybe not. Perhaps she didn't read the policy, or perhaps she tacitly consented to a budget without knowing what was or wasn't in there re: rape kit expenditures. It also speaks of signing off on things, but then is vague as to whether she literally signed off (is there a smoking gun document bearing her signature), or did she tacitly sign off, in the sense she did not voice an objection to a new year's budget which added and subtracted things from its predecessor?

I understand from the Alaska paper that there were three reported rapes during the relevant period, and, going from memory, the rape kits cost $300 - $1200. I have read elsewhere that a sports stadium in Wasilla caused the city to incur a $20,000,000 debt. So, in terms of materiality, did the rape kit expenditure warrant its own separate line on the budget, or was it an aggregate for the police department, and so forth? These are all relevant questions, it seems to me, given that Palin denies having had knowledge of the police department's policy. You don't have anyone who says of course she knew? It looks like she has some enemies up there, witnessed by troopergage. Where is the smoking gun on this one?

I have sat through many budget meetings. If one of my co-budgeters were to say to me, I did not realize we were increasing or decreasing a couple of thousand dollar item or sub-item in a multimillion budget, and no one was around to contradict them, I'm not sure why I would conclude they were lying.

Finally, I'm not entirely sure I accept Media Matters - in terms of conclusions, as opposed to basic facts. Their statement that the GW kid "schooled" everyone else, for example, seems a bit hyperbolic. Other aspects of the article are similar. I was looking for something more MSM.

I am sure someone will attack me for wearing rose colored glasses on this one, but let me say this. If this were a court, and the Media Matters document were your only evidence, you would not prove your case under any conceivable burden of proof. And if this entire issue is Exhibit A in the case against Sarah Palin, that case isn't very strong, either.

Hey, I'm glad I amused you. Like I said, take a farmer who plants a crop, trucks it to the market, and then watches as some people in Chicago trade futures in it on the commodoties exchange. If those markets fluctuate wildly - and were unregulated, like in the past - lots of rapid fortunes and bankruptcies would be made. So, what to do? Declare the farmer *rich* and gauge his margins to hand out tax rebates to a majority of the country which envies him? That's the Obama plan. Regulate the markets to smooth out the ups and downs? Sure, fine. That's both McCain and Obama. Empathize with the farmer overtly and say hey, let the guy make his living, so we all have something to trade on at the end of the day, regardless of how it's regulated? That's Sarah Palin. You don't need to send me any statistics. I understand how it works.

Hey, you're actually making my point. The modern farmer is the biggest welfare recipient of all. Who would have guessed, with ethanol subsidies, that after all the turmoil of 9/11, the middle east, and the complicated topsy turvy world in which we live, that the poor dumb farmer would come out on top and receive more largesse per capita than the rest of his citizens combined? It's a crazy world out there, folks.

I'm talking about a hypothetical farmer, in my discussion with faulknerjr.