And even if it were, I might not like it..which in some ways is a comment on Sara Palin's aesthetics itself.

I've lived in Alaska a number of times over the last 20 years, even for a while in Wasilla under Palin's administration, and aside from the improbably fact that she's been selected as McCain's running mate, there's not much special about her, and the position on regarding predators and prey populations is rather typical of the mentality of lots of Alaskans..the simple straight line connection between animals that eat other animals and their populations. It is human nature and it IS scientific...some scientists will support her in particular if they share the same goals: lots of hunting for the swarms of guns, snowmobiles and combat fishing enthusiasts that moved-up to Alaska specifically for that and who now all but controll the state through their fundamentalist church led voting blocks in the Anchorage bowl and the MatSu valley.

Keep in mind that these simple straight-line relationships in the complex systems of predator/prey are rarely all that simple no matter how many would like to see it be so, including scientists..after all, it's hard to argue that lots of wolves and bears must eat something. Of course many who read this will see a similarly straight line connection with CO2 and warming, another controversial insistence on interpreting a straight line interpretation of a very complex system, but that's a different rant.

As typical with these kinds of situations, the truth, if "truth" is actually the word (perhaps "reality" is a better word...though not the reality as in "reality TV")..the reality is that approaches like these can be simulatneously right and wrong.

We do seee a conflation of disgust at the idea of shooting from air, along with shooting wolves at all, and with any kind of hunting or even eating meat. In fact there may be times when either predator or prey over-run their resources and it's not a pretty sight either. Shooting from air, while unfair in a sportsmanship point of view, is undoubtedly a lot less cruel and a lot quicker, than many of the alternatives, including the kinds of death that wolves typically experience in their wild setting and certainly in the alternatives that hunters and trappers have in mind no matter how sportsmanlike it may seem to us on the sidelines.

To me the issue of shooting from the air should really be a question of what exactly one is trying to accomplish and not about whether we find it cruel or unsportsmanlike. Increasing the number of big prey animals seems like a good idea, but from the point of view of many alaskans there simply can't be too many and doing the lord's work is a way of saying that they want it to be convenient.

If painting the roofs white in the ten largest uban areas would counter the effects of the CO2 we wouldn't need this crazy complex economy-hobbling guilt-addressing self-flaggelating crabon offset program and then where would that leave those who are about to turn carbon offset programs into major investments? So, obviously that won't work. You see, just because there is a simple solution doesn't mean the solution would work particularly if those who are currently in the forefront of creating the complex solution have their soup bowls firmly affixed to the complex plan they've rigged up and are looking forward to getting even with their ideological adversaries.

It sure is interesting to see how these conservative and moralistic corruption fighters go about fighting corruption, by bathing in it...in a similar fashion they fight for fairness, transparency and small government by abusing the very power they claim to deplore...it's like all the televangelists who inundate the airwaves saying that people's love of wealth leads to sin while they're of course luxuriating in the contributions of their guilt ridden followers.

And yet it almost seems to make no difference to the majority of eligible voters who will toss their support behind those they know are no better at running things than themselves and then blame "gu'mint" for all their troubles.

In the words of the immortal Charlie Brown; "good grief". I sometimes think that the public spirited exhortation to "get out there and vote" has backfired and we should hope that fewer and fewer vote, those fewer being those who've followed the issues and have some insight.

I have to admit I'm against gay marriage too. Solely because I'm opposed to the government telling religions what is and isn't allowable, and marriage is above all a religious ceremony. That's why marriage in a religous setting is always followed or preceded by the couple signing a legal document and on that there should be no regad for the signers' sex. Everybody should have the right and in some cases the obligation to form a civil domestic contract with another person to secure their combined wealth and see to the welfare of their household.

Marriage once taken out of the context of religion is still a marvelous thing because it's about individuals expressing themselves and addressing the inate human desire for bonding within the context of a relationship.

Marriage within the context of religion is a ritualistic process that binds the procreation and subsequent expansion of the believer's faith into a doctrine targetted at longevity of the powerstructure of the church, under the guise of assisting that imaginary unit called "the soul".

But even athiests want to be bonded with others and have that bond secured and recognized by law, and laws that prohibit that are going against the human instinct for intimacy and security with others in the context of family.