Yahoo! Main Page, Palin guilty of Violating Ethics

Alaska inquiry finding: Palin abused power - Yahoo! News

For those of you with lazy tendencies. Summary

Gov. Palin has been accused by a bi-partisan panel of violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. She reportedly tried to have her former brother-in-law fired, because of a family grudge stemming from the divorce of he and the governor's sister. With no avail the Palin's had the man who was supposed to be doing the firing, fired.

And of course to every story there are two sides and generally more, so...

Palin pre-empts state report, clears self in probe - Yahoo! News

I knew she did it from the beginning. Why else would she put so much effort into stonewalling the investigation? If she was innocent she would of cooperated and set the record straight as soon as she possibly could. Instead she and her husband both ignored federal subpoenas and encouraged all her former aides to do the same.Yeah, I'm pretty sure she handled this situation perfectly.

I also love how this isn't gonna change anybody who was already gonna vote for hers mind. She could literally commit murder and there would be people who would still vote republican.

I notice all she could get if convicted is a slap on the wrist.

God.

I was kind of hoping to see that power-hungry *blank* in cuffs. I really can't stand anything about her except her looks.

Abuse of power?
Well... thats a very mavericky, joe sixpack, thing to do. Way to go!:fish:
You go, girl!

Wheres Mel Gibson to show her whos a real maverick.

She'll feel right at home in DC.

Nothing will be done to her nor will it affect much. I don't know how credible either report are!!

I just don't understand how you can be found of abusing power but not have broken the law or done any wrong. I sure as shit hope SOMEONE can explain the reasoning behind this to me.

A separate committee has to decide whether or not she broke the law, and the maximum penalty for such a crime is a 5000 dollar fine. I'm not sure whether or not it's an impeachable offence under Alaska state law. Either way, it looks like they're going to be at this for a few months so she could be vice president by the time she's found guilty, and by then she can have old John give her a presidential pardon.

This is something that bothers me.. and honestly as soon as I heard the circumstances surrounding this situation I had a strong feeling she was guilty.

She claims it was for budgetary reasons? You would think that for her own political safety alone she would've avoided this guy as much as possible and fired someone else if it was truly a budget issue.

Palin is definitely guilty of this. Makes you wonder how often this happens in the general populations workplace. Probably more often than we'd like to think.

There's a saying.. "it's who you know" I guess the same is true when getting fired. Poor guy (brother inlaw).. family matters should stay family matters and out of the workplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

A separate committee has to decide whether or not she broke the law, and the maximum penalty for such a crime is a 5000 dollar fine. I'm not sure whether or not it's an impeachable offence under Alaska state law. Either way, it looks like they're going to be at this for a few months so she could be vice president by the time she's found guilty, and by then she can have old John give her a presidential pardon.

---

So let me get this straight....we need two committees, one thats already been bipartisan, so say whether or not abusing the power given to her by people who trust her is a crime. And even then, a $5,000 fine? That is some SERIOUS bullshit. That's a prime example of how accountability is no longer an issue in this country. If you have any sort of power, please feel free to do whatever you wish, we're just gonna take a tiny fraction of the huuuuuuuge paycheck you DON'T deserve. I can't even believe what I'm hearing. It's almost like we're ASKING for people to make a joke of being in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

This is something that bothers me.. and honestly as soon as I heard the circumstances surrounding this situation I had a strong feeling she was guilty.

She claims it was for budgetary reasons? You would think that for her own political safety alone she would've avoided this guy as much as possible and fired someone else if it was truly a budget issue.

Palin is definitely guilty of this. Makes you wonder how often this happens in the general populations workplace. Probably more often than we'd like to think.

There's a saying.. "it's who you know" I guess the same is true when getting fired. Poor guy (brother inlaw).. family matters should stay family matters and out of the workplace.

---

The ex-brother-in-law is still on the force, it was Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan that was fired.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

The ex-brother-in-law is still on the force, it was Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan that was fired.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Who was fired because he would not fire said ex-brother-in-law. Anyway you look at it, it boils down to the same thing. Palin wanted to fire her brother-in-law.

Doesn't matter how you paint it.

What the Troopergate Report Really Says -- Printout -- TIME

a more in depth report of how things went down, it looks like Palin herself kept her hands relatively clean and had her husband do most of the gruntwork, which is probably why she will likely get little more than a slap on the wrist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by issachar

What the Troopergate Report Really Says -- Printout -- TIME

a more in depth report of how things went down, it looks like Palin herself kept her hands relatively clean and had her husband do most of the gruntwork, which is probably why she will likely get little more than a slap on the wrist

---

Thanks for the link.. I'll be sure to give it a read when I get a chance

I didn't see that anyone has posted this yet. I downloaded the entire pdf. from the Alaska State Legislature Main Page:
The Alaska State Legislature

It's an interesting read. Just click on the ***Legislative Council Investigation Report*** under "What's Happening?" to download.

I, for one, am getting tired of reading summaries and interpretations... so I went for the actual report. Been experiencing the spins lately. :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Who was fired because he would not fire said ex-brother-in-law. Anyway you look at it, it boils down to the same thing. Palin wanted to fire her brother-in-law.

Doesn't matter how you paint it.

---

Maybe it "doesn't matter", but there is evidence that the ex brother-in-law Wooten is dangerous, as well as an abusive husband and father. The story below has allegations, "that he had Tasered his stepson; driven a cop car while holding a beer...... shot a moose without a permit (charges which resulted in his suspension for five days without pay as a trooper).....might have submitted a questionable workers' compensation claim."

The Palins had filed numerous complaints against Wooten while Sarah was a private citizen, which apparently wasn't enough.

His union said his behavior was not "job-related".

He sounds like a bad cop to me, and they're often the hardest to control - especially with a powerful union in their corner.

Palin Warned to Stop Disparaging Sister's Ex | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

oh yes a left hand monkey wrench indeed

let me get this straight
the bro in law needed firin' i will agree with any ass hole that will taser his own son will taser me for smokin herb
the sherif guy who didnt fire him should have been fired for not firin the asshole with the taser
but palin should be fired for firin the sherif guy for political reasons.

good god my head is goin to explode

we need a left hand monkey wrench to beat a whole shit load of people in the head with

p.s. i do know that he was not a sherrif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Maybe it "doesn't matter", but there is evidence that the ex brother-in-law Wooten is dangerous, as well as an abusive husband and father. The story below has allegations, "that he had Tasered his stepson; driven a cop car while holding a beer...... shot a moose without a permit (charges which resulted in his suspension for five days without pay as a trooper).....might have submitted a questionable workers' compensation claim."

The Palins had filed numerous complaints against Wooten while Sarah was a private citizen, which apparently wasn't enough.

His union said his behavior was not "job-related".

He sounds like a bad cop to me, and they're often the hardest to control - especially with a powerful union in their corner.

Palin Warned to Stop Disparaging Sister's Ex | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

---

Asshole or not.. Last I checked Palin had an executive office, this was a legal/judicial matter. At best she should've called for review through the Alaska Court systems; taking it up to the state supreme court if needed.

I'm not saying he probably didn't deserve it, but her reasoning doesn't match what officially happened. Secondly she over extended her authority over personal conflict.

I believe everyone here knows which side I lean on; and i have to say this is a messy situation and a conflict of interest. It was a mistake on her part to have involved herself the way she did.

A couple things I noted from the full report (which was read late last night and I can't remember 100%):
Yes. Trooper Wooten shot a moose without a valid permit, but the person with him did have one. Wooten then went to a Palin relative (father or in-law?) to have the moose butchered. It is suggested that the relative knew the moose had been shot without permit, but proceeded anyway. The Palin's wanted charges to be pressed on Wooten, but were upset when talks began that their relative could be caught up in prosecution.
I believe Todd Palin was also trying to get him investigated for a false injury compensation claim, because Todd surveilled him and took pictures of Wooten snowmobiling. I'm pretty sure the report states that Wooten was given permission to do so by a doctor.
I think someone in the Palin's or the Governors office was filing complaints that Wooten was either dropping off his kid at school, or waiting to pick them up while on duty too. This was investigated and he had obtained permission to do so, because of his schedule.
Crazy part of the report which I think is toooo funny/ironic:
Walt Monegan went to the Governors office to have her sign an Alaska State Trooper card for an event that they were supposed to attend. Palin later cancelled her appearance because (if you can believe it) the photo on the State Trooper card was none other than Trooper Wooten. The guy she wanted fired. Haha. Monegan had never even seen Wooten, so he had no clue. What are the odds?
Anyway, figured I would share.....
P.S. I'd say, for Gov. Palin's sake, they should stop talking about it publically... saying he is a dangerous Trooper. Until he is charged with something criminal, that shit is defamation of character. Now, I'm not saying he's Trooper of the Year... but he seems to have been cleared of whatever dumb shit he's done so far.
- BUT!!! From someone who has seen behind the Law Enforcement curtain first hand... there aren't many that don't have dirty hands. Why do you think most of them wear gloves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Who was fired because he would not fire said ex-brother-in-law. Anyway you look at it, it boils down to the same thing. Palin wanted to fire her brother-in-law.

Doesn't matter how you paint it.

---

Then why is he still working and why wasn't this a priority of the next Public Safety Commissioner? Apparently at first, Walt Monegan was stating that he was never contacted about firing the brother-in-law then later on he recanted his story. Something just doesn't add up here....

Have a good one!:s4:

isn't it amazing, how partisanship works. on a site where i have often heard deafening cries over the abuses of law enforcement's power, we now seem to have so many who are coming to the defense of such abuse. i can only find it excruciatingly humorous that, for the sake of defending the mighty liberal cause, y'all are willing to overlook the faults of this officer and the failure of his superiors to properly chastise him in order to attack someone who was trying to do what most of you would usually applaud. oh, if only she were on the other side of the aisle, then you could pat her on the back for a job well done.

the hypocrisy of partisanship knows no bounds.:S2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

isn't it amazing, how partisanship works. on a site where i have often heard deafening cries over the abuses of law enforcement's power, we now seem to have so many who are coming to the defense of such abuse. i can only find it excruciatingly humorous that, for the sake of defending the mighty liberal cause, y'all are willing to overlook the faults of this officer and the failure of his superiors to properly chastise him in order to attack someone who was trying to do what most of you would usually applaud. oh, if only she were on the other side of the aisle, then you could pat her on the back for a job well done.

the hypocrisy of partisanship knows no bounds.:S2:

---

The hyprocrisy in general knows no bounds... The question I have is simply this... How many of you could stand to have your personal, private, family, and professional lives opened up to the world and broadcast all the questionable and bad stuff on the evening news and CNN??
Could you pass muster?? Ever heard of a glass house??

I am Mississippi Steve, and I approve this message.:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Then why is he still working and why wasn't this a priority of the next Public Safety Commissioner? Apparently at first, Walt Monegan was stating that he was never contacted about firing the brother-in-law then later on he recanted his story. Something just doesn't add up here....

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I'm honestly not sure what you're defending here. Palin said it was for budgetary reasons and then there were obviously things happening at home that would've created a conflict of interest.

So please tell me exactly what you're arguing or defending here because it seems that you're jumping point to point now with no clear direction.

I am not going by what was said; I am going by the situation and circumstances surrounding the situation.

Abusive brother-in-law...Palin has her husband put pressure on Monegan.. he doesn't. Palin fires his boss and then argues that it was for budgetary reasons. Palin never denied the ordering of the firing. So I'm unsure what your argument is. At first you list one question that is a relevant Question.. Why is he still working. Then you make a statement in the opposite direction that honestly has no relevance here unless you are trying to say that Walt Monegan was fired for no reason. Which clearly isn't the case:

Gov. Palin's husband, Todd Palin, met with Monegan in January 2007, a month after his wife took office, to say that the trooper was unfit for the force. Monegan also said the governor sent him e-mails, but Monegan declined to disclose them, saying he planned to give them to the independent prosecutor.

Palin initially denied that she or anyone in her administration had ever pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. She said she had raised the matter with Monegan just once, relaying the allegation that Wooten made a death threat against her father.

But this summer, Palin acknowledged that a half-dozen members of her administration had made more than two dozen calls on the matter to various state officials.

Palin Focus of Probe In Police Chief's Firing - washingtonpost.com

Really I'm not sure why Walt would deny that except to possibly protect the Palins from scrutiny. He would've gained no benefit of denying he was contacted. Matter of fact it would've given him a clean slate to say he was unjustly fired.

Quote:

---

Monegan said Todd Palin told him that Wooten "shouldn't be a trooper."

"I've tried to explain to him," Monegan said, " 'You can't head-hunt like this. What you need to do is back off, because if the trooper does make a mistake, and it is a terminable offense, it can look like political interference.'

"I think he's emotionally committed in trying to see that his former brother-in-law is punished."
ad_icon

Monegan said he was also contacted by three other Palin-appointed officials, including the attorney general, regarding the trooper. Each time, he said, he told the administration officials that he would keep an eye on the trooper, but that unless he violated a rule, nothing could be done.

---

Palin Focus of Probe In Police Chief's Firing - washingtonpost.com

When Palin acknowledges the reasons and Monegan confirms it... nothing seems fishy to me. Honestly he stands to benefit here; why would Palin acknowledge a situation that would come back to haunt her. That's like going into a police station with bloody hands and confessing to murder. Case shut and closed.

The argument again, does not make clear sense; but maybe I am misunderstanding the direction you are going with this. Maybe you can clarify?

In regards to your first question. I am not sure if he's working and to be honest I haven't read the actual report that was posted earlier yet (browsing the web is a pain since I moved. Don't have a solid internet connection yet.), but if he is still working then I strongly believe he should be under review and fired; never being allowed to work for any law enforcement agency again. In addition to going to jail for his past misconducts.

:hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

isn't it amazing, how partisanship works. on a site where i have often heard deafening cries over the abuses of law enforcement's power, we now seem to have so many who are coming to the defense of such abuse. i can only find it excruciatingly humorous that, for the sake of defending the mighty liberal cause, y'all are willing to overlook the faults of this officer and the failure of his superiors to properly chastise him in order to attack someone who was trying to do what most of you would usually applaud. oh, if only she were on the other side of the aisle, then you could pat her on the back for a job well done.

the hypocrisy of partisanship knows no bounds.:S2:

---

hypocrisy? I think not. Fact is that she put herself in a bad situation for even involving herself. For making a family matter a political one. Honestly she had several opportunities prior to becoming governor to pursue this. The circumstances surrounding the firing of Monegan are fishy. While I acknowledge the ex brother-in-law is an asshole; that does not give Palin the right to fire Monegan under the premise that he would not fire her ex brother in law. Something Palin acknowledges her husband and administration brought to his attention and Monegan acknowledges a well. Then to fire Monegan and claim it was for budgetary reasons when the state of Alaska apparently has made enough money to give each citizen a $1200 check. Considering the large surplus Alaska has firing due to financial reasons does not seem likely.

It is not her brother in law that I disagree with. I believe he should be brought under review, stripped of his job, never allowed to work for a law enforcement agency again and serve a criminal sentence for everything that happened prior to this. It is the matter in which her administration conducted the matter. She could not single out a single person the way she did, and to complicate matters further it involved a family issue. It just was not a smart move politically.

I think Sara Palin is Great. I was extremely pleased when she was announced on the VP ticket and I continue to think she would make a great VP and a great Asset to America; but I don't excuse her from this moment of stupidity.

So hypocrisy.. no... viewing a situation for what it is and how it rates from a legal/political standpoint. Yes

I typically agree with your posts, you lean much further right than I do; so if you take my post as just bantering then by all means rebuttal by calling my a hypocrite instead of arguing against my post showing how I was wrong and Palin was not stupid for involving her political office into a family affair.

:hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

The hyprocrisy in general knows no bounds... The question I have is simply this... How many of you could stand to have your personal, private, family, and professional lives opened up to the world and broadcast all the questionable and bad stuff on the evening news and CNN??
Could you pass muster?? Ever heard of a glass house??

I am Mississippi Steve, and I approve this message.:thumbsup:

---

How many of us are in political office that would create a situation that would put our family under scrutiny. Something that could've been handled from a civil standpoint and taken up to Alaska's State Supreme court if needed. There was plenty of evidence prior to this to file a suit. Given that a number of the events pre-date when Palin became governor; a member of her family could've filed for legal recourse and seen it all the way through.

Palin made a mistake politically. I don't feel she was necessarily wrong, but I feel it was stupid. Her brother needs to be taken care of and personally I'd rather see him behind bars than I would care for him to lose his job. Something that only the court systems would be able to do.

As I have said many times before... what you do in the privacy of your *OWN* home, is your business....anything you do in public is subject to scruteny.

I really wish they would focus on what the candidates *can* do, instead of looking for crap to fling into the fan... They seem to forget that when it hits the fan, that it goes *EVERYWHERE*, and all concerned get splattered.....including the "flinger". They try to make the other folks look bad, and only succeed in making themselves look worse....and it really makes the media look like crap for trying to sensationalize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

As I have said many times before... what you do in the privacy of your *OWN* home, is your business....anything you do in public is subject to scruteny.

I really wish they would focus on what the candidates *can* do, instead of looking for crap to fling into the fan... They seem to forget that when it hits the fan, that it goes *EVERYWHERE*, and all concerned get splattered.....including the "flinger". They try to make the other folks look bad, and only succeed in making themselves look worse....and it really makes the media look like crap for trying to sensationalize it.

---

You're right, what you do in your own home is your business. Being in public office brings your private life into scrutiny automatically. Furthermore using your authority over what is seemingly a family matter brings further scrutiny.

However I think it is relevant; just as I think Obama's personal relations with multiple questionable people is relevant.

This doesn't change my vote; I'll still be pulling the lever on the McCain/Palin ticket come November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

How many of us are in political office that would create a situation that would put our family under scrutiny. Something that could've been handled from a civil standpoint and taken up to Alaska's State Supreme court if needed. There was plenty of evidence prior to this to file a suit. Given that a number of the events pre-date when Palin became governor; a member of her family could've filed for legal recourse and seen it all the way through.

Palin made a mistake politically. I don't feel she was necessarily wrong, but I feel it was stupid. Her brother needs to be taken care of and personally I'd rather see him behind bars than I would care for him to lose his job. Something that only the court systems would be able to do.

---

Truth, here. I sure as shit don't want my life up on CNN. But I'm not running for vice president. If someone thinks they can help lead this country, I deserve to know every scrap of information about them, big and small. It's not for THEM to decide it's important, it's for ME, for US to decide. She could have had the whole thing taken care of in Alaska prior to the election, but nope. She also said previously that she fired Monegan because he went on an APPROVED trip to a convention/budget meeting on rape and sexual assault, or something to that effect, to see about increasing their budget for such crimes. She then said she did NOT support him going, but he went anyway. But then, Palin doesn't care about rape victims and what not, she probably thinks it's God punishing them for dressing slutty. But that's my personal bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

hypocrisy? I think not. Fact is that she put herself in a bad situation for even involving herself. For making a family matter a political one. Honestly she had several opportunities prior to becoming governor to pursue this. The circumstances surrounding the firing of Monegan are fishy. While I acknowledge the ex brother-in-law is an asshole; that does not give Palin the right to fire Monegan under the premise that he would not fire her ex brother in law. Something Palin acknowledges her husband and administration brought to his attention and Monegan acknowledges a well. Then to fire Monegan and claim it was for budgetary reasons when the state of Alaska apparently has made enough money to give each citizen a $1200 check. Considering the large surplus Alaska has firing due to financial reasons does not seem likely.

It is not her brother in law that I disagree with. I believe he should be brought under review, stripped of his job, never allowed to work for a law enforcement agency again and serve a criminal sentence for everything that happened prior to this. It is the matter in which her administration conducted the matter. She could not single out a single person the way she did, and to complicate matters further it involved a family issue. It just was not a smart move politically.

I think Sara Palin is Great. I was extremely pleased when she was announced on the VP ticket and I continue to think she would make a great VP and a great Asset to America; but I don't excuse her from this moment of stupidity.

So hypocrisy.. no... viewing a situation for what it is and how it rates from a legal/political standpoint. Yes

I typically agree with your posts, you lean much further right than I do; so if you take my post as just bantering then by all means rebuttal by calling my a hypocrite instead of arguing against my post showing how I was wrong and Palin was not stupid for involving her political office into a family affair.

:hippy:

---

We sort of agree here. There's no hypocrisy because most people would see this guy in jail. However, he is not, and Monegan was fired. Palin seems to have a history with people who don't obey her to the letter, and attempting to get rid of them. She seems very spiteful to me. I believe she would have pushed to have him fired, personally or not, until he was, regardless of how long it took. I'm also horrified that she could be anywhere near the white house. Executive experience or not, the woman is dumb as a bag of bricks and hasn't said anything worth listening to, IMO. Experience doesn't even mean anything anyway. I reference George W. Bush for this. G dub was governor of Texas for much longer and has a rich history of politics in his family. By all rights he should have been an amazing president. And yet, he didn't have the slightest clue what he was doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I'm honestly not sure what you're defending here. Palin said it was for budgetary reasons and then there were obviously things happening at home that would've created a conflict of interest.

So please tell me exactly what you're arguing or defending here because it seems that you're jumping point to point now with no clear direction.

I am not going by what was said; I am going by the situation and circumstances surrounding the situation.

---

-This "story" insinuates that the brother-in-law was fired which is false, he's STILL working today

-When first questioned about it, Walt Monegan was stating that his termination had nothing to do with the dismissal. It wasn't until she became a candidate for V.P. did his story change.

-IF the reason behind his dismissal was that he wouldn't terminate the brother-in-law then why hasn't his replacement done just that. Seems that she would have hired somebody with that in mind from day one.

Clear direction here....seems like there is 1 part truth and 2 parts politics going on.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

-This "story" insinuates that the brother-in-law was fired which is false, he's STILL working today

-When first questioned about it, Walt Monegan was stating that his termination had nothing to do with the dismissal. It wasn't until she became a candidate for V.P. did his story change.

-IF the reason behind his dismissal was that he wouldn't terminate the brother-in-law then why hasn't his replacement done just that. Seems that she would have hired somebody with that in mind from day one.

Clear direction here....seems like there is 1 part truth and 2 parts politics going on.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I see.. thanks for the clarification. I was confused with where you were going with this earlier.

Honestly I can see what you're saying now, but at the same time Palin's story isn't exactly solid. I'll probably have a more permanent opinion once i get on a connection that's worth a crap so I can read that report.

:hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

-This "story" insinuates that the brother-in-law was fired which is false, he's STILL working today

-When first questioned about it, Walt Monegan was stating that his termination had nothing to do with the dismissal. It wasn't until she became a candidate for V.P. did his story change.

-IF the reason behind his dismissal was that he wouldn't terminate the brother-in-law then why hasn't his replacement done just that. Seems that she would have hired somebody with that in mind from day one.

Clear direction here....seems like there is 1 part truth and 2 parts politics going on.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

This part is not true. Monegan had made his complaint and claimed to have been fired unjustly before Palin was selected. The ethics investigation had started long before she was selected.

I personally think this Wooten character is an ass and an idiot and has no place as a state trooper. He probably should have been fired long ago.

However, it is an abuse of power for the Governor to attempt to force his boss to fire him as part of a family vendetta. That is the issue here. She had a conflict of interest and acted improperly. She was warned about the conflict of interest and potential ethics problems and went ahead anyway. It is also interesting that she had her husband make most of the contacts in a weak attempts to keep herslf out of it. That is just stupid. This gets at her competence as an admiistrator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I personally think this Wooten character is an ass and an idiot and has no place as a state trooper. He probably should have been fired long ago.

---

off topic.. in general I've noticed your posts seem almost angrier and meaner lately; which is very much not like you, contrary to our differences on issues you're usually level headed and practice a great deal of common sense when analyzing things. Everything ok?

fyi: I am not referring necessarily to this post.

Sorry for the off topic post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

off topic.. in general I've noticed your posts seem almost angrier and meaner lately; which is very much not like you, contrary to our differences on issues you're usually level headed and practice a great deal of common sense when analyzing things. Everything ok?

fyi: I am not referring necessarily to this post.

Sorry for the off topic post.

---

Hmmmm... I think I'm OK.

I think I have been angry about a few things lately though. I am irritated by the increasingly negative tone of this election --- it wasn't this negative and personal until after the conventions. And I am also angry about this financial crisis --- mostly about the way we have all KNOWN something was wrong for a year or more, but the government refused to ackonwledge it until it was a full-blown crisis.

So I am mad about some things I see in the news, but nothing in my personal life has made me angry in general.