The Home of Steven Barnes
Author, Teacher, Screenwriter

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Oh Blah Dee...

I am having so much FUN. I'm in a pay-or-play position with a certain network, and the project looks like it could be terrific. There are strong, opinionated people who have to work some thing out, but the truth is that the issues that divide them (and yes, I'm being artfully vague here) are issues I could resolve with no sweat. Whatever they decide, it's just fine. Meanwhile, I sit back and watch the fireworks from the best seat in the house. Work life is good...


Every day, multiple times a day, I visualize a triangle and the "end points" of my three main goals: body/fitness, intelligence/career, and internal/external peace and love. I visualize the body I'm working for, and the way I want it to move. I see the amount of money I want to make per day, and then per year. And I see my family sitting around me in a circle, and make eye contact with them one after another, telling them I love them, and apologizing for any problems, resolving to do better.

While I'm doing this, I work my "Be Breathed" patterns, dropping my breathing to my One-Point (third chakra).

Now here's where it gets cool. During my daily yoga or other exercise (currently centering around the H2H circuit training and S.H.O.T.--all fitness components worked except max strength.) I work the breathing. Now...when I am under emotional stress, I just go back to the breathing I was doing in my workout, and am immediately centered and strong. The physical becomes a metaphor for my emotional and spiritual journey. This is valuable, but even more so is the stuff happening at an unconscious level.

What I'm up to is creating a Pavlovian Stimulus-Response loop between stress and re-integrative power breathing. That way, your system automatically upshifts when the pressure is on. Lovely.

No doubt about it: the major missing piece I was looking for was found in Scott Sonnon's Flow State Performance Spiral audiotape. I must have listened to it a hundred times. What a threshold experience: a simple explanation for phenomena that can usually only be addressed indirectly. Those pesky, brilliant Russians!


I'm going to spend the day working on the Dream Park project with Larry Niven. Look forward to that.


And speaking of that, I had lunch with my favorite Conservative, Jerry Pournelle, last Saturday. Some of you may know that he had some health challenges. Just wanted to say that at this point everything seems to be working well, and I am seriously relieved. He is one of my very favorite people, and one of the smartest guys I've ever met. And I wish him as many more years of healthy life as he wants to have.


I see some stuff on both sides of the aisle that is pissing me off. Conservative pundits claiming that the investigation of Sarah Palin by reporters is partisan or sexist. Why don't they dig into Obama..? Dear God, where have these idiots been the last two years? Every possible piece of Obama dirt has been pulled out. This is just lying.


On the other hand, some recent verbal flubs by McCain have triggered a flurry of frankly disgustingly joyous speculations that he is having more "Senior Moments" and may be losing his mind. The unconcealed pleasure in some of these comments is vile. What in the heck is it about Politics that brings out the worst in people?


Anonymous said...

>What in the heck is it about Politics that brings out the worst in people?<

Politics is forcing people to do things they don't want to voluntarily do, and doing so at the point of a gun. It's a pretty icky topic by it's very nature.

People also self-identify with politics to a huge degree and attacks on their political party are often seen as personal attacks on them.

Also, throughout most of history picking the right political side has often been the difference between life and death.

"Thak support Ogg for chief!"
"Grak support Thogg for chief!"
Ogg becomes chief.
"Hmmm, Grak's skull was crushed in last night. Wonder how that happened?"

Josh Jasper said...

What's a "a pay-or-play position"? Is that like getting a kill fee if a project doesn't move forward?

Anonymous said...

What causes the nastiness? The stakes. Politics ultimately intrudes into almost every aspect of life directly or indirectly. People's beliefs, their finances, their relationships, their dreams and hopes for the future. Add the huge amounts of power that governments throw around for and against their supporters and opponents and you tie into greed and fear as well.

Anonymous said...

There was a study done a while ago that showed that when people watch sports, some part of their brain thinks that _they_ (the person watching) are actually playing the sport. Part of their brain doesn't just think it is watching a sports game, part of it thinks that it is currently a sports star.

It made me wonder if when people see political figures or think about what politicians should do, some part of their brain doesn't think that they are actually the politician.

Daniel Keys Moran said...


Sure. I used to run a website, -- we had fans from other teams on the site, and we'd get off on politics. We had conservative Lakers fans and liberal Lakers fans, conservative Sacramento Kings fans and liberal Sacramento Kings fans ... watching the Lakers fans flame the Sacramento fans and vice versa, the liberals flame the conservatives and vice versa, it was perfectly obvious it was the same circuitry at work.

Steve Perry said...

Because if McCain loses his mind while he is the Prez, we get Palin and if that happens, I believe we are well and truly fucked.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

Anybody remember Reagan?

This is not the time to sit on the fence. Pick a side, because that is what it will take.

Anonymous said...

It's a sad fact that while you may not want anything to do with politics, politics WILL have something to do with you.

One way or another.

So it is best to pick a side.

Josh Jasper said...

I don't muck like the "If McCain looses his mind" politics any more than like the anti-Palin diatribes that are also anti-feminist.

Count this liberal out of such politics. If Obama can't win without his supporters resorting to that sort of tactic, he doesn't deserve to win.

Marty S said...

I think politics has gotten much worse. The country is in crisis at this point and people should be coming together, instead each side is to busy blaming each other and trying to use the crisis for their own gain. The only really objective/non partisan and good analysis I heard was in an interview with Bill Clinton. It made me wish he was running I could vote for him.

Anonymous said...

"What in the heck is it about Politics that brings out the worst in people?".

Little to no ethical or moral accountability in practical terms, say like, legal. One can promise the sun, moon, and the stars and not be called on it come delivery day. Truth is as loosey-goosey as it gets and why not? As long as it's not a sworn statement the perjury statutes sit idle.

The real neat part is that a good many of your colleagues are fellow co-conspirators. If Mr. Deeds were Ali Baba and went to Washington these days he'd meet 534 thieves, or there abouts.

Bill Clinton said it best recently, "Politics is a contact sport". Sure is. And played with steel-toed boots and no cup.

mkf said...

as regards your penultimate point, i must respectfully disagree.

all public criticism of senator obama in this election cycle, regardless of the issue--rev. wright, bill ayers, annenberg, rezko, voting "present" when he shoulda taken a stand, etc.--has pretty much gone like this: (1) point is raised, (2) cries of "racism" are directed at whoever raised said point, (3) turmoil ensues, (4) barack eventually addresses the issue, peppering his response with words like "divisive" (his code-word for "racist"), and (5) that's it--once barack's spoken on the matter, that's supposed to settle it, and any further questioning by his critics merely means the questioner is racist.

governor palin, on the other hand? say what you want about her--and i've said a lot--this ol' gal has taken a merciless beating on every aspect of her past by the press and the left the likes of which i've never seen in american politics.

and, so unlike obama--and this is what stands out in my mind about her--she hasn't whined even once about her treatment on the national stage; she evinces fearless toughness in a way the good senator can't even approach.

[and just in case you wonder about my biases: having long since determined that john mccain is not only temperamentally but intellectually unsuited to the office--and being even more scared by his choice of running-mate--i will be casting my vote for barack obama in november. but, as you might have guessed by the previous, i will not be doing so with any particular enthusiasm.]

Josh Jasper said...

mkf - I don't remember anyone crying "racist" about the Rezko claims. With the Wright claims, there was a reasonable claim of racism in people's criticism of him because it wasn't about just the 3 words "God Damn America", but it was also about the theology of the church, which was black centric.

A lot of the sexist criticism of Palin has turned my stomach. But here's the thing, I read feminist blogs. Quite a few of them. Without exception,a ll of them have noted the valid criticism, and the sexist criticism, and condemned the sexism. Modern feminism isn't to blame for the sexist criticism of Palin. it's sexists in the Democratic party, just like there was racist criticism of Obama from inside the party.

It's not a perfect party by any means. There are homophobes among the democrats too. But on the other hand, here are enough people with whom my values are aligned that I'd rather vote for them than for the Republicans most of the time.

Nancy Lebovitz said...

Where is the "flow state performance spiral" audio available? I've seen it mentioned in the Rmax forum, but not for sale on the site.

As for politics, I expect part of it is people hoping that if they're insulting enough, shame and fear will prevent defection to the other side. I'm not going to say it's a useless strategy, either, though it probably isn't worth the cost.

Besides, unless you're rather kinder and more enlightened than the average, being insulting is fun. I'm still not sure why it's as much fun as it is-- to the point of addiction in some cases, but we're talking about a species that can torture Sims as a hobby, so there's something pretty deeply ingrained going on.

The other side is fear. These are difficult times, and it's presumably important for the US government to not make big mistakes. This cranks up the fear and anger level-- can the Other Side possibly mean well? Will they respond to anything other than punishment?

Ronald T. Jones said...

Ronald T. jones for President!

Anonymous said...

I think most of the complaints have to do not with Palin being investigated in the first place, but with the methods and _tone_ of the investigations compared with those of Obama. The vibe I get when most reporters interview Obama is, "Love, love, love, I soooooo want you to win, Mister Senator Obama Sir" while with Palin it's more along the lines of, "Destroy! Destroy! Destroy!"

According to this study

"An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans."

I really don't see how a group who supports one side by a 15:1 ratio can even hope to be objective. I just don't think human nature works that way.

This is a pretty funny parody of that attitude.

" Calling Sarah Palin a murderer might seem a stretch.

At first.

But alarmingly, Sarah Louise Heath Palin was born on February 11, 1964 - a suspicious beginning, as it is also the forty-eighth anniversary of the arrest of the free-thinking “first-wave feminist” Emma Goldman, for lecturing on the benefits of… birth control.

This “coincidence” could be easily dismissed, if poet and woman Sylvia Plath had not committed suicide one year (to the day) prior to the birth of Palin. Whether Palin was aware of this fact as a child isn’t known - and whether the banning of the book “The Bell Jar” was actually discussed with her parents cannot be said for certain, but there had to be a reason why both mother and father landed comfortable jobs at various schools of learning - convenient locations that gave them easy access- not simply to books - but to bells, jars, and to children as well.

…Palin was “born” in Sandpoint, Idaho - but for murky reasons fled to Alaska - a well-timed move considering that only a decade or so later, Sandpoint would become a destination for like-minded travelers called the Aryan Nations. The organization claims to have disbanded in 2001 - a “fact” Palin might want us to believe, as she made more than several visits back to Idaho - for what observers call “schooling.” Not necessarily an advocate of “white power,” it is safe to say that Palin is white, and full of power.

That’s what some skeptics might call “convenient.”

Anonymous said...

If Palin did nothing wrong then she should let the investigation take it's course.

Instead of stonewalling until after the election is over.

Marty S said...

Interesting occurrence: I was listening to FOX and MSNBC and heard the same thing from commentators on both. Both said that in light of the current economic crisis neither candidate is going to be able to deliver on their campaign promises made up to now. They both said it would be interesting to see which if either of the candidates will admit this and what positions they will take from here on out. The FOX commentator was a conservative and MSNBC a liberal.
I think we are really in trouble.

Josh Jasper said...

There's a saying "It's not the crime, it's the cover up".

Honestly, if Palin had only copped to a bit of personal in her politics, it wouldn't have looked as bad. But now, the McCain campaign has multiple versions of the "truth" on the issue that contradict each other, and so does Palin.

If anyone is interested, This post and this post over on Making Light by Jim Macdonald and Teresa Nielsen Hayden give a good breakdown into the issues.

There's a bit of what looks like a conspiracy theory about John McCain's health, but I'm ignoring that. The facts that they have arranged around Palin's behavior with the Monegan firing are worth looking at.

What jumps out at me is that, after Monegan, someone with a paper trail of competence was fired at around the same time calls were made for him to fire an employee who was out of favor with Palin. Then (and here's the clincher) Monegan's first replacement chosen by Palin was so incredibly tainted by a sex scandal that he was never even allowed to work, and given a $10,000 severance package for not doing anything other than being a sexist pig who harassed an underling, and then got picked by Palin for Monegan's job.

No one should be surprised that Palin and McCain don't want the courts looking into this. It's the Alberto Gonzales DOJ scandal writ small, and more tawdry.

Am I being partisan in looking into this? Possibly, but using the state government of Alaska to shield her is *corruptly* partisan. I can't force the state of Alaska to do anything. Palin can, and is.

Nancy Lebovitz said...

I think part of what's going on is that there's a range of causes for disagreement. The most common is probably more or less honest different point of view-- different but reasonably good sources of information, normal variation in risk tolerance, that sort of thing. I say "more or less honest" because I don't think most people do a careful check of how true what they believe is.

Then we've got competing interests-- people would rather that they and their own get some advantage. And it matters a lot how large an advantage they want if you're opposing them.

And incompetence-- sometimes one side is just plain wrong.

Then there's malice-- I think this is relatively rare, but it certainly happens that one side wants the other not just to lose, but to suffer.

If you make a mistake about which category your opponents fall into, or about how attached they are to what they're doing, the consequences can be very serious.

Part of the situation is that politics makes it tempting to move to the most frightening/infuriating assumptions to get people motivated at all, but the other part is (I believe) that the current administration is shockingly bad. I didn't used to be partisan, but at this point I can't even remember what it was like when being partisan seemed like an altered state.

Marty S said...

Josh: Find a liberal site. Find liberals from Alaska who don't like Palin, put their anti Palin "facts" in print on the web and suddenly the truth is out there. Palin is a bad person, a worse official, and proof that McCain isn't qualified to be President. Well go to some conservative blogs read the "facts" about Obama and you can conclude that Obama is qualified to be the dog catchers assistant.
Frankly I find the net to be of little use in forming opinions related to the election. I have been trying to find the details of Obama's tax plan that's supposed to help 95% of "working families". When you google Obama's tax plan what you get is evaluations that tell you it is true or false according to some analysis group, but its hard to find the actual details. Apparently the truth or falsity depends upon estimates of effects on individuals of changes to corporate tax policy. Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians on either side would tell us what they plan to do in way we can understand, instead of just saying I've got a plan and you will like it.

Nancy Lebovitz said...

More truth in humor than in the serious media....

Marty S said...

Nancy: That post really hits the nail on the head. His search for McCain's energy policy exactly mirrors my search for Obama's tax policy.

Josh Jasper said...

Marty : Find a liberal site. Find liberals from Alaska who don't like Palin, put their anti Palin "facts" in print on the web and suddenly the truth is out there.

If Watergate was happening now, would you be be dismissing news of the break in as liberal propaganda?

Marty S said...

Josh: Its real simple I don't believe anything said about a conservative by a liberal or about a liberal said by a conservative until someone, as in Watergate, can show irrefutable evidence. If Palin is guilty of something I am sure that evidence will turn up, but hearsay is not evidence and as far as I'm concerned the two posts you referenced are hearsay.

Marty S said...

Josh: One more thing. I voted for George McGovern not Nixon, because Watergate or something worse is exactly what I expected from Nixon.

Jas. the Hidden said...

Mike Ralls said:
"I really don't see how a group who supports one side by a 15:1 ratio can even hope to be objective. I just don't think human nature works that way."

As a group, they can't. I do think that *each* media source *is* biased, one way or another, and it's up to the people to listen to the liars on all sides and try to find the truth.

But as for the article you referenced, which includes the title "Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1", I question *its* bias, too. I'll raise one questionable point which was unanswered. What did they mean by "Democrats" and "Republicans"? Specifically, did it include the DNC and RNC in their calculations? Also, did it count all primaries or just post-convention donations?

After all, to see how each would affect the numbers, I ask this:
1. Since McCain is forbidden to raise money for himself after the convention, did they ignore all contributions to Obama after that point? Or did they count all RNC contributions as McCain contributions?
2. Since McCain won his primary so much earlier, did they ignore all contributions to Obama after that point?
If the answer to either question is "no", then I'd like to see some revised numbers before I can believe the 15:1 you quoted.

Me? I've already chosen the candidate for whom I'll vote, based on a specirfic issue on which the two candidates are diametrically opposed.

Still, as regards all these so-called facts that keep coming out, on both sides, I'll keep asking questions. You should, too. Thank you for showing me that article.

Josh Jasper said...

Marty- Its real simple I don't believe anything said about a conservative by a liberal or about a liberal said by a conservative until someone, as in Watergate, can show irrefutable evidence.

Well there's direct proof of Palin contradicting herself on the firing, direct proof that her next candidate lost his previous job for sexual harassment.

There's proof Palin denied making calls on the issue to Monegan, but then recanted when presented by evidence.

And so forth, and so on. All the points along the case where they claim one thing, and get corrected.

And now, we've got subpoena going out, and she has the temerity to tell state employees to violate the law and ignore them

One of the things about Nixon was his vicious destruction of the DOJ into a group that wouldn't prosecute his cronies on Watergate. He got his wish, but the abuse of the law so badly that it eventually brought him down. And should have.

The Palin/Nixon parallels are pretty good here.

Daniel Keys Moran said...

Always amused by the journalists are democrats thing. Journalists are extremely well informed, and tend Democratic.

So do people with advanced degrees.

If you're a conservative, you pretty much have to come down to "Too much information is dangerous."

Marty S said...

Josh: I simply don't agree with you.I read a post that says in an ABC interview Monegan stated he was pressured to fire the trooper. Then I read a report on the interview at ABC news and that report indicates that Monegan stated he was pressured to open an old case against the trooper. These are two very different things. You can draw parallels with Nixon on this subject I can draw parallels with the Drew Peterson case. If this trooper were still a member of Palin's family the story we would now be hearing would probably be about how she was protecting a bad apple.

Josh Jasper said...

Marty, I'm not presenting a "agree or disagree" position here. I'm displaying facts.

1) At fist, Palin refused to discuss why she fired Monegan.

2) She then claimed it was because she wanted to "take the department in a new direction"

3) She then claimed he wasn't doing a good job on stopping boolegging.

4) It was recorded on TV weeks previous that she praised his efforts on stopping bootlegging, going so far as to offer him a job on the Alcohol board because of his efforts.

5) She then did an about face, and claimed he was fired because of egregious insubordination (no instances of what that was specified)

6) Monegan states that the real reson was because of his refusal to fire Trooper Wooten

7) Palin denies any knowledge of contacting Monegan, or her staff doing so.

8) There are records of Palin's office, Palin's husband, and Palin herself contacting Monegan. Some recorded conversations prove that there was pressure being applied.

9) Palins subordinates are subpoenaed

10) Palin instructs her subordinates to violate the law and refuse the subpoenas.

11) The first man hired to replace Monegan never actually took the job, but managed to get at $10,000 severance package for doing nothing. He was unable to take the job because it was revealed that he'd sexually harassed an underling during his last job.


Anonymous said...

This is pretty simple really. It's human nature and the way we perceive things. If you agree with Sarah Palin you will ignore or find a way to find honorable things that you would deplore in a candidate you disagree with. If you disagree with Sarah Palin's views you will find the things that you normally find virtuous to be an unforgivable flaw.

We are so identified with our thoughts and opinions that we all find ways to support our "rightness" no matter what we have to give up in order to do it. Ego identification.

The truth is that we survived 8 years of Democrat "rule" and eight years of Republican "rule". As much as it seems like our current situation is the fault of Bush, the truth is we can't know. There's no telling if things would be substantially better or worse if Gore had won the coin toss.

It's my view that it's best to agree or disagree with ideas and stop disagreeing with people. The root of war and conflict is the mistaken belief that I am my ideas and those who think differently are somehow their ideas.


Steven Barnes said...

I think that the number of times racism has been brought up in the Obama campaign is grossly overstated. I've heard people accused of sexism for criticizing Palin almost in TWO WEEKS about half as many times as I've heard racism blamed for negatives about Obama in two years. And considering how often I've heard things that, for me, trigger the "race-bait" button: every time I hear a white commentator excusing the term "uppity" when I have never, ever heard that term in political discourse before, tells me that there is some serious denial going on. But I keep hearing:
1) Everytime you criticize Obama, it's racism.
2) You can't lampoon Obama without getting an accusation of racism.
3) if he wins, it's because he's black.
I consider all of this garbage. The Daily Show has skewered Obama numerous times, and I haven't heard a whisper of racism. But the CHARGE is valuable, because it reminds that 40% of white voters that he's black, when his blackness is a negative. Very clever. Even REBUTTING the accusations reminds people he's black. It can't be combatted directly--only indirectly by, for instance, reminding people that McCain is old. Dirty, but a comparable tactic. And in my mind, far more of a genuine concern.

Nancy Lebovitz said...

Scott, do you think it's impossible for an administration to be so much worse than usual that it can make a large negative difference?

Anonymous said...

Hi Nancy -

It's certainly possible, but decisions aren't made in a vacuum. As much as we like to give credit or assign blame to the executive branch for the economy, the President doesn't really have that much to do with it. And the affect that they do have doesn't really kick in for a decade after the administration has left office.

However, since the President is the commander in chief and has the power to send in troups you can certainly blame (or assign credit if you see it that way) for Iraq. That being said, the D's were just as much on board as the R's were in this particular fiasco.


Marty S said...

Scott: Excellent post. You got it exactly right

Josh Jasper said...

So who cares what a politician does? Why did we even worry about impeaching Nixon? After all, Watergate mean nothing in that perspective.

Actually, thinking about it, this is how people act these days, isn't it? What a horribly divided country America is.

Marty S said...

Josh: Before pointing the finger at everybody else and saying they see things through there own color glasses you should examine your own thinking and biases. Lets concede that every charge against Palin is true and that she abused her power as governor to get rid of this trooper. Now, you compare her abuse of power only to Nixon and Watergate. Ask yourself why you didn't use Clinton's abuse of power having sex(oral or otherwise) as the example or at least both Clinton and Nixon. Even if the charges against Palin are true I am a lot less disturbed by them than I am at what Clinton did. Could it be your Democratic bias that leads you to use Nixon as the example of all time sleaze bag.

Anonymous said...

Josh -

First of all to correct a common misperception: Bill Clinton was impeached Nixon was never impeached. Impeachment means formal charges are made and has nothing to do with being "kicked out of office".

Of course we should watch our government and the individuals within it. But there is a distinct difference (at least in my mind) between disagreeing with a philosophy of government so much that I hate the person for the thought. Wars begin because we think someone elses ideas are so wrong that they deserve to die.

I live in Minnesota. When Paul Wellstone was alive I used to joke with friends that I no longer had to think about issues anymore. All I had to do was find out where Paul Wellstone stood on an issue and take the opposite position. Having said that, Paul Wellstone was one of the most honorable politicians that I ever had any dealings with. He was exactly who he said he was and didn't mind in the least that others believed differently. He could discuss his views and your counter views and then have a beer and watch a ball game with those same people.

My main point is that we can have different ideas and ways of looking at things, but those things are just trappings that we wear. They're biproducts of our experiences; we've all loved different people, knelt at different graves and therefore we see the world through different lenses. It's just a lense man...that's all I'm saying.


Josh Jasper said...

Scott - I never said we impeached Nixon, I asked why we ever worried about it. He resigned before he could be impeached. Clinton was impeached, but the motion failed to pass.

Presumably, Nixon would have actually been removed form office, though who knows, perhaps we'd have kept him. If we would have, that'd be an indictment of the entire nation as utter morons as far as I'm concerned.

But the point was to ask why any criticism of actions Palin has taken is being dismissed as partisan with no concern for what she actually did. It's like she gets some sort of pre-absolution based on her politics. Probably in the same way liberals did for Clinton, but the Palin/Nixon comparison is more apt than Palin/Clinton.

Marty - Could it be your Democratic bias that leads you to use Nixon as the example of all time sleaze bag.

I could use Buchannan if you'd like, but most people don't know about him. And no one has yet managed to live up to the infamous Boss Tweed in recent politics, though Jack Abramoff and all of the people doing buisness with him come close. But that's bribery, not abuse of power for personal gain in Palin or Nixon's sense of the word.

But to answer your question, no. Nixon is considered by the majority of historians to have been a disaster as a President. He's also ranked near the bottom in polls of the general populace.

Also, it's not that she abused her power to get rid of a trooper. Actually, he's still working there, because she can't fire him.

What she did was fire the person who was in charge of the process by which Wooten (the trooper, and her ex brother in law) would have been removed. Monegan set the process moving as he would for any state trooper. Palin figure she could overrule Monegan by firing him for not firing Wooten faster than the policy would allow.

Then she covered it up, and lied when she got caught. She continues to lie about the thing.

Nixon got caught on tape. So did someone from Palins office pressuring Monegan. There are also phone records of Tod Palin Sarah Palin's husband) making calls to Monegan.

I used Nixon as a comparison because the comparison concerns the executive branch, a cover up, a misuse of the state to continue the cover up, and a firing of an official involved in the scandal. In Nixon's case, it was Archie Cox, and in Palin's it was Monegan.

Josh Jasper said...

Oh this just gets better! News is now coming out that Palin apparently contacted a private workers comp company and pressured them to deny Wooten benefits for his claim to an on the job injury.

When they (rightfully) refused, Palin requisitioned Wooten's personnel file, and had it sent to her office. Her husband then stalked Wooten, photographing him on a snowmobile to try to get the benefits company to deny his claim

The story is in the Anchorage Daily News. Not a liberal blog.

Will someone please explain how someone like this is fit to be one step away from the Presidency?

Marty S said...

Josh: So you say that Nixon and Palin were part of the executive branch so its the same. Last I looked so was Clinton. You say Nixon and Palin used their office for personal gain. So taking advantage of your office to obtain sex doesn't constitute personal gain, but going after a bad apple in a law enforcement agency does. Palin and Nixon lied, but Clinton told the truth. Never said I didn't have sex with that girl.
Its easy to find parallels where you want and differences where you want when you have already made up your mind about a person because you don't like their politics.
Oh by the way quoting other liberal media other than blogs doesn't make the reporting any less slanted.

Josh Jasper said...

Marty - Josh: So you say that Nixon and Palin were part of the executive branch so its the same.

Same? No. I said it's an apt comparison of abuse of power, mostly because of the coverup and the position in the executive branch. That's not calling it the same. It's just saying that there are enough similarities to warrant using Nixon as an example for comparison.

last I looked so was Clinton. You say Nixon and Palin used their office for personal gain. So taking advantage of your office to obtain sex doesn't constitute personal gain, but going after a bad apple in a law enforcement agency does.

Palin abused her authority. That's the bottom line. The fact that she did it should not be acceptable no matter who's showing you the facts.

If you reduce what she did to getting rid of a bad apple, you gloss over the fact that she fired someone for not breaking rules because she said so, and avoid the fact that the man she wanted fired (Wooten) was in a messy divorce with Palin's sister in law. Wooten might be a jerk, but firing someone who refuses to break official rules for not firing him and then covering it up by telling employees to refuse to testify to subpoenas is an abuse of her authority.

Why did Monegan have to suffer for her not getting what she wanted? Monegan is not the trooper in question, Wooten is. All Monegan did was refuse to break rules for Palin.

No amount of complaining about the liberal media changes the truth. A=A , 1+1=2, P-> Q, -P -> -Q is true no matter what your voter registration card says.

Marty S said...

Josh: I accepted the premise of Palin actually having abused her authority only for the purpose of discussing why you chose a particular Republican as your parallel and ignored other Democratic parallels. In fact I don't yet accept that she abused her power. The case against her is very different depending upon where you read about it. Every source I read that echos your opinion has a liberal bias. When I read articles from these souces on other subjects to evaluate their biases if any the slant is always liberal/pro Democrat. A number of these sites on the net are at least semi honest. They describe themselves as "independent" not as non-partisan.

Josh Jasper said...

Marty : In fact I don't yet accept that she abused her power. The case against her is very different depending upon where you read about it. Every source I read that echos your opinion has a liberal bias.

If you've got any proof of a contradiction of the claims I make about the firing, please put it out there. Conservative sites are focusing on Wooten, who wasn't fired at all.

Marty S said...

Josh: I don't have proof of anything one way or the other and make no judgments one way or the other at this point. But, when I read sites without a liberal bias or articles written before Palin was nominated I read things that contradict things like your statement that Monegan stated he was fired because of his stand on Wooten. When asked in an interview back before the nomination whether or not he was fired because of Wooten, Monegan replied simply that he thought it was possible. A much less deterministic answer than the statement you quote.
Basically as far as I am concerned this is a, he said she said, issue at this point.