SARAH PALIN'S TRANSCANADA GAS DEAL

As a hurricane hurtled down the Gulf Coast the other day, our Republican Convention was presumed to be negatively impacted.
I thought it a blessing in disguise.
Nobody, including McCain and his new sidekick, VP Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, will need to see, hear and be reminded of the disgusting faces and voices of Bush and Cheney, who have the perfect excuse NOT to be present at the Convention.

Instead, most of the remaining Convention will focus entirely on McCain and Palin, where it should be.
Bush and Cheney can fade into the sunset, since the Vichy Democrats have done nothing about them, anyway.

But, the star of the Republican Convention will be Sarah Palin, for whom everyone is waiting.
Everybody knows this.
The entire Presidential campaign has turned upside down into choices about VP Palin and Biden, just as Cheney played the inverse role in the previous Nazi Bush Administration.

So, amongst the two above, who would you pick?
Even if you do not live in the US, you should be able to figure this out.

Meanwhile, the substance, the essence, of Sarah Palin's candidacy is her oil/gas/energy company tussle and conflicts in Alaska.
The Transcanada gas deal she negotiated in Alaska must be carefully studied.
Below are some highlights, and you can readily see why our fake Left will NOT substantially analyze ANY possible alternatives or directions she represents in this area.
Instead, they will dutifully focus on trivia.

In the first link, following, be sure to click onto the name IN BLUE, "Bloomberg, " for additional background information:

www.grandinite.com/2008/o8/29/palin-gives-transcanada-pipeline-a-break

And:

www.adn.com/3072/story/429964.html

And:

www.juneauempire.com/stories/060208/sta_285421748.shtml

Of course, I start from the point that our entire oil/gas/energy industry is NOT nationalized.
That's a given.

So, beginning within those parameters, the Transcanada gas deal Palin negotiated above represents an interesting and substantial development.
I heard Palin speak about her position on this matter, only once, unfortunately.
I hope to find out more.
She is and was quite clear and articulate.

According to Palin, Alaska's State Constitution stipulates clearly that the resources in/under the ground are OWNED by the citizens of the State of Alaska, said she.
As far as that goes, the natural resources underneath the ground are socialized or nationalized, collectively owned, altho she did not use those terms.

However, it/their production, development, transportation is "leased" by the State to private, capitalist corporations.
She used the term "capitalist," herself.
She was quite clear in her categories and conceptualization.
And, in this economic relationship, she sees herself as State CEO representing ALL "shareholder citizens" of the corporate entity known as the State of Alaska.
Thus, in bargaining negotiations with private developers, she is determined, as such, to represent a more EQUITABLE partnership between the private/capitalist corporations and the many state shareholders of the public Corporation whom she represents.
From her point of view, the emphasis is to redress and rebalance, equalize, the power of the State's public shareholders in this two way bargaining unit and partnership.

The terms of Palin's public/private gas deal with Transcanada, working within the above categories, fundamentally changes and challenges the absolute authority of the private corporations to dictate the terms of their public/private partnership.
She prioritizes and gives weight to the public sector, where it SHOULD be.
Both in practice and in principle, this makes the above named private companies nervous.
She definitely acquired some enemies.

As to whether or not the pipeline should be built, that's another matter entirely.
Since the US has NO national resource, energy and industrial policy, thus, no corresponding rationalized allocation of resources is possible based upon anything other than a competing, conflicting, irrational patchwork quilt of profitable investors.
It is impossible to answer the above question with any viable, alternative, concrete, organized plan, other than a hypothetical.

Thus, whether or not the proposed Alaska gas pipeline is fundamentally "necessary" or economically viable is unanswerable.
The question turns itself over on its head.
How is "needed/necessary" defined economically?