Sorting The Palin Family Laundry -- Updated

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. I think when all is said in done, the thing I will take away from the bizarre Sarah Palin fiasco is the certainty that the Daily Kos is ridiculous. They win the prize for catapulting an utterly irresponsible piece of "journalism" into the public eye. While it shows the power of the blogosphere to shoehorn issues into the MSM, it also opens the left wing blogosphere to charges of really shoddy, tawdry, bottom-feeder reporting. The absurdity of all this is not lost on Lee Stranahan, whose own coverage of the John Edwards mess, got him banned from the orange city. The irony for me, of course, is that despite making over fifty short political videos with a clear progressive point of view, I was banned on DailyKos for saying that it seemed reasonable that John Edwards was seen at the Beverly Hilton late at night. This is what marks Daily Kos as a thoroughly partisan organ, trafficking in the worst sort of hackery. When legitimate questions are raised about a prominent Democrat, shout down the offending voices for spouting tabloid sleaze. When dubious charges are leveled at a rather suddenly prominent Republican, it's full speed ahead and don't worry about trifles like proof before you publicly try and convict. I will not be pulling up the Daily Kos story in question. I did so the other evening and it froze up my browser for a good twenty minutes. It wasn't worth it. I was stunned at the crappiness of it. I was stunned at the quite possibly libelous nature of it. I could not believe that a diarist could be so stupid as to state such assertions as fact. And, I could not believe that a blog as censorious as DKos allowed that to stand, when so many perfectly fair diaries have been deleted and so many reasonable people been banned. I will, however, tip my hat to doberman pinche, who offered up the outrage of Townhall. "Sarah Palin is NOT the Mother" is the title of this DailyKos blog that accuses Bristol, a completely fit-looking adolescent teen, of having a "baby bump" in a photo they allege was taken March 9th of this year. "Sarah, I'm calling you a liar" wrote blogger ArcXIX. "And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better. " Photos of Bristol with detailed commentary about her abdomen are contained in the post. Not only is the DailyKos disgustingly inspecting Bristol's midriff with all the fervor of LA paparazzi examining J-Lo's or Jennifer Aniston's washboard stomachs for evidence of a "bump," the DailyKos is wrong on when the photo was taken. It was taken, and published, by the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. Baby Trig, a child with Down's Syndrome, was born on April 18, 2008. That's a long time for a teen girl to be carrying a "bump" which looks nothing more than the curve of a tight sweater. The Daily Kos induced furor has now forced the campaign to announce that 17 year old Bristol is 5 months pregnant and planning to do what all good, Christian, teen mothers do; get married. I wish her well and I'm truly saddened that her private life has been dragged into the spotlight. But it is certainly arguable that Sarah Palin's own richly layered idiocy is largely to blame. I'm ambivalent about a lot of this. There is certainly plenty of fodder with which to attack Sarah Palin's candidacy, without dragging out anyone's gynecological history. From the bizarre video in which she wonders aloud what a VP does all day, to the fact that her own mother-in-law seems unsure she's qualified, to the statements about Iraq being both a war for oil and God's work, to the fact that she was almost a recalled over corruption charges as mayor, to possible secessionist leanings... Okay. The list gets pretty long. But, I remain unconvinced that the questions surrounding the birth of little Trig aren't relevant and worthy of, all be it, more responsible scrutiny. Sarah Palin: Not Flat Busted Photo: Provided by the Palin Family I Can't Take This Woman Seriously I found myself somewhat at odds with Maryscott on this issue. I agree strongly about the sanctity of a woman's right to privacy regarding reproductive choice, but I have a hard time defending that right for a woman who would take that very privacy away from women everywhere. I disagree (8.00 / 1) and this is why. Because this is a woman, running for the Vice Presidency, who fully intends to have her nose in every other woman's uterus, not only in this country, but in any nation to which we apportion aid. This is a woman who wants to make abstinence only education the law of the land, but who can't get her own, unwed teen daughter to close her legs. And, I can say that now, because I just heard on the car radio that Bristol is pregnant right now, at 17, and they are busily arranging a shotgun wedding. "What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker by: Curmudgette @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 15:13:32 PM EDT ********** by: you @ soon To post this comment click here: Otherwise click cancel. You must enter a subject for your comment So. Because SHE'S a hypocrite, WE have the right to be hypocrites? (0.00 / 0) Interesting logic. --7.88, --6.56 If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution. by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 15:47:24 PM EDT by: you @ soon To post this comment click here: Otherwise click cancel. You must enter a subject for your comment ********** Because she's a hypocrite (6.00 / 1) she has a right to be exposed as a hypocrite. Period. It reminds me of when both Bush the senior and Quayle were asked if someone in their family had an unplanned pregnancy, if they would want them to have access to abortion. They both said, it would be a private family matter, and they wouldn't discuss it. Fuck that. When you're talking about intruding on the privacy and integrity of every other woman's body in America, fuck you. You don't get a right to privacy. Right to life extremists are pushing for legislation all over that country that would force women who miscarry -- miscarry -- to prove it. So fuck 'em. You want to crawl up my twat with a flashlight? You don't get dispensation to do things that women could be prosecuted for under some of the legislation you and your wingnut pals want to push through. If she traveled after her water broke, she endangered the life of her unborn child. That will be prosecutable offense if some of these whackjobs get their way. "What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker by: Curmudgette @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 15:59:09 PM EDT Admittedly, I can get a little worked up over this issue... And, I may have lost my objectivity. Mainly because I'm sick to fucking death of these whack jobs who are bound and determined to legislate a standard of morality that even they cannot meet. But, there is a line. Daily Kos crossed it. Update: It would seem that the powers that be at Daily Kos have been sufficiently shamed into deleting the diary (or diaries) in question. The user known as ArcXIX now shows no diaries in his listing. As of this writing, he also has no comments listed after 8/29, for whatever it's worth.

Hillary Sucks Up To Bloggers

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeThe first thing that shot though my mind when I saw Hillary take the stage was the color of her pant suit. I have never seen her in something so colorful and bold. The second thought was... "hmmm, that is Daily Kos orange." I think the coverage for this convention is better than any of recent elections, mainly because of the Big Tent bloggers. I am getting more nitty-gritty, more insight and better analysis than I am getting elsewhere. MSNBC is OK (better with Olbermann and Maddow). CNN is totally fucking unwatchable. Fox News is easier to watch than CNN and that is saying something. CNN can't claim it has the best "political team in television" while showing a picture of Larry King. It is an oxymoron. CNN's coverage is so bad, I keep hoping that Lou Dobbs would show up just so someone would say something off-script. One of my fav things to watch is the MSNBC crowd cheering when Maddow is introduced (and loudly disagreeing with Pat Buchannan on almost everything). Sooner or later, that crowd is gonna make Pat cry. Bloggers aren't at that point... yet.

Score one for the "netroots"

Via Huffington Post Score one for the Netroots! Newsweek has just announced that Markos Moulitsas, namesake and founder of the Daily Kos website, will be a contributor for the mag's 2008 election coverage. I wish I could think of something to say, but I seem to have sprained some sort of irony-related muscle. So I'll just go with this...

With friends like these....

By all accounts the March on Jena, Louisiana today was a huge success. And quite honestly, it could have started a whole new era for the civil rights movement in this country. I felt proud of my peeps and their activism today, and it gave me serious hope for the future. It was amazing to see all the people of color here in Philly, coming together for a common cause, and showing solidarity by dressing in black. And one only has to read the comments section of my last post, to see that that spirit was not only here in Philly, but it was nationwide as well. That was the good. So now let me tell you about the not so good. It would seem that our so called progressive friends in the "blogosphere" have been strangely silent about Jena. Yes folks, once again, our so called friends on the left, have shown that they only care about our causes when it suits them and their agendas. Shame on you Kos, MyDD, Huf Post,and all the usual suspects. You guys had a chance to step up to the plate and show us that you are our friends and you came up small. I expect this kind of treatment from the folks on the right, not you guys. Look, I blog about the war constantly, because it's fucked up, and young Americans are losing their lives to make some fucking oil companies rich. So I understand your issues with the war, and the fact that you have to blog about it. But would it kill you to show some passion and blog about social injustice and domestic terrorism in our own fucking country? Would it kill you guys to get a fucking clue and not be so far behind the eight ball? Folks, when the gang at CNN are ahead of Markos and company on Jena, we have a problem. The entire orange crush crew ought to be ashamed of themselves. But honestly, I don't even know why I bother. I am feeling like a hypocrite for telling people like Francis Holland to leave the progressives alone, when I am doing the same thing by even tripping about this. I don't know, I guess I was just hoping....aah fuck it. Yep, this was almost a perfect day, until I read this wonderful post, from a blogger with a coffee avatar, and realized that even perfect can be a relative term. I'm out.

Meanwhile, in Blogtopia...

Lance Mannion artfully dissects Harry Potter and The Deathly Hollows. Lance is the "hip, slick, and cool" English teacher that dorky nerds like me had wet dreams about. Go to The Grey Matter for The Angry Liberal's thoughts about Hillary and her promising chances of her capturing the White House. I don't entirely agree with him, but it's tasty food for thought. Please sir, may I have some more? Over at Hullabaloo, Dover Bitch righteously kicks the shit out of Rudy Giuliani. Like his buddy Bush, Rudy was another useless, limp-dick ghoul of a politician who used the smoking ruins of 9/11 as a photo-op. Logan Murphy at Crooks and Liars informs us that the Iraq power grid is on the verge of collapse. It's amazing. Because the United States has fucked up the war so royally, the Iraqis are looking back on Saddam's reign of terror as "The Good Old Days". Dennis Miller sucks Bill O'Reilly's cock. I see dead comedians... On a special episode of "CSI: Chicago", Driftglass does an autopsy on the Mainstream News Media. Viewer discretion advised. Cannablog uses a time machine to go back to the days when MTV was good. Finally, here's Meteor Blades: I know what a lot of you 57 Democratic Representatives and Senators are going to be saying over the next month while you’re speaking on the home turf. You did it to protect Americans. You didn’t want to take a chance. You had to stand up to the terrorists. You really had no choice. If anybody asks why in hell you chose to legalize what the Cheney-Bush team has been doing illegally since 2001, you’re going to tell us you did it for our own good. You amended the 29-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – originally passed to put some modest restrictions on agencies whose outrageous and frequently illegal behavior had been exposed by journalists and the Church Committee – to make us safe. You’re going to tell us you’ve got our backs. You’re going to claim we can depend on you to be tough against terrorists even though you just put your foreheads to the floor at the feet of the most loathsome duo ever to sink their talons into the office of the Presidency. You’re going to tell us you couldn’t stand up to the blackmail, although that's not what you'll call it. You’re going to say Democrats can’t afford to appear weak. At which point, if I happen to be in the back of the room, your bodyguards will probably have to drag me off. Because I cannot imagine how I will be able to quiet my laughter long enough for you to get on to the next question. Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You are surrender monkeys. And you’ve just casually tossed away a basic protection as if it were a banana peel. Go read the rest. You'll be cheering even as the tears start running down your face. And then go punch the wall, drink a shot of Jack, call up your friends and scream incoherently (but politely) for several minutes, and get ready to do it all over again. Just don't give up.

wherein skippy randomly apologizes for what he's said about kos

cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs. due to the wonderful nature of randomocity in the universe, the daily kos random blog roll of 10 user blogroll links (changed daily) has listed skippy the bush kangaroo for four days in a row. since a lot of our disagreement with markos is based on being unceremoniously dumped from his blogroll, we feel that we must now make some amends. ergo, we will randomly apologize for 4 random things we said about kos. we have counted approximately 30 posts about kos which we have written about kos since being dumped off his roll (the number of which brings to mind the shakespearean quote about some lady protesting too much somewhere). we then generated 4 random numbers with this random number generator. those numbers are: 28 4 26 13 so we will apologize for those posts. specifically #28: it takes a big booman to do a big job booman graciously took it upon himself to add all the blogs to booman's roll which markos and duncan dumped from their rolls. but we must apologize. we said it took a big booman to do a big job. if any of you have met booman in person, you know that he's not particularly big (not that he's short, he's just right). we regret having said he was big. he is not. he's medium. our apologies. #4: killing two bugaboos w/one blog we are sorry we agreed with steven d at booman who said he was often at cross purposes with markos. but we we sincerely apologize. we don't agree with steven d. he is never at cross purposes with markos, and if he says he is, he is a damnable liar. #26: three questions of the day man, this one is way beyond us. mimus pauly, our co-blogger, wrote on this post, en toto: duncan who? markos who? jesus what? we don't even know what the hell mimus was talking about. and you can bet, ladies and gentlemen, for that, we apologize. finally, #13: dear markos: it gives us no pleasure to say "we told you so" this one is almost a no-brainer. we got 7 kinds of sh*t from most people about this post wherein we chastized markos for dismissing cyber-stalking against kathy sierra, when not 3 days later, the virginia tech massacre took place. at the time, we seemed to think there was a cautionary moral lesson involved, something along the lines of "don't dismiss stalking as violence against women, because it could snowball into real violence." upon reflection, we realize that it was an argument so weak that liberace could kick sand in its face. we truly regret having made such a facetious connection, tho we stand behind the primary premise that cyber-violence against women should not be dismissed. we hope this sets a random amount of the record straight. we randomly want markos to not feel bad for a random amount of things that may or may not have randomly occurred. we randomly regret a random amount of those errors. [ed. note: and to a lesser extent, duncan.]

Mother Jones article on poliltical bloggers

It hit the news stands a couple days ago, but now the Mother Jones article for which Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing was interviewed a while back appears in the online edition of the magazine: "This is what happens when you crash the gates. All of a sudden, you're not just a pajama-clad kid in his parents' basement; once you've demonstrated your power and influence, people start demanding accountability and transparency. They want to know, for instance, that you aren't pushing a candidate MERELY because you (or your friends) have been paid by that candidate to do so." Read the rest here.

Children of a Lesser Blog

Hat tip to durrati, over in the My Left Wing version, for finding this picture for me The title of this post is based on a comment by Madscientist in Maryscott O'Connor's essay A Lesser Blogger: Or, You Don't Count--he noted that personally, he didn't find it all that bad to be "children of a lesser blog". I liked the turn of a phrase, so I decided to use it--in a tongue in cheek way--as the title of this post. I certainly do not consider My Left Wing to be a "lesser" blog. And I'm proud of the dedication and independent spirit that is displayed by we, the many, who are not "top tier" bloggers. Maryscott's essay was written in response to a Media Matters piece by Eric Boehlert, entitled Wash. Post still blind to liberal blogger successes. Mr. Boehlert does make some valid points--for example, comparing how often the Post quotes or mentions by name, liberal versus conservative bloggers. But things go downhill when he starts in on his hymn (How Great Thou Art) to Markos/Daily Kos... To this day, the Washington Post has never profiled Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of The Daily Kos, the most popular and influential political weblog in the world. The Post didn't even review last year's influential Crashing the Gate, the hardcover progressive manifesto that Kos co-wrote with fellow blogging pioneer Jerome Armstrong. ...and hit bottom with his sneeringly dismissive description of the Post's front page profile of Maryscott O'Connor. The piece certainly had its negative aspects, but I think Boehlert mischaracterizes it. And a big part of his point seems to be that the newspaper profiled a "lesser known" liberal blogger rather than the well known, but not at all liberal Markos Moulitsas. You can contact Media Matters through this link. (Adapted from the Media Matters recommendations for contacting the media) Please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding Eric Boehlert's commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like Media Matters to do differently in the future. I've been on Media Matters' mailing list for some time now. I believe they do good work, and I share their action items and alerts as time permits. Even if I'm a *much* lesser known blogger, I believe that doing whatever little bit we can do *matters*. Finding out that Duncan Black (aka Atrios, the founder of Blogroll Amnesty Day) was a Senior Fellow at Media Matters gave me pause, but I thought it was unfair to let that one thing bias me against the organization. But Boehlert's piece was another clue that this media watchdog organization endorses and upholds the unspoken (well, among the "cool kids" it's unspoken...) caste system among bloggers. And, I'm sorry, but that's just not cool. I'm not too excited about the notion of crowning *new* royalty to replace the high and mighty media people once they are de-throned. I'm much more interested in building *geniune* people power--that benefits *all* the people.

Prophets and Kingmakers

From time to time I've mentioned the EfM seminar meetings I attend on Sunday nights. It is a four year program where, in addition to theological reflection as a group, students cover different materials in each year of the program. This is my second year, so the focus is the New Testament. Last year we studied the Old Testament in depth, and learned lots of fascinating things that I didn't know before. But, as those readings recede further into the past for me, I can mostly recall general themes and motifs rather than specific details. For example, I know that there was quite a bit about prophets and kings. And in the past few days I've been thinking about the prophet/king dynamic in terms of the role of bloggers in relation to elected officials. Prophets often were cast in the position of having to "speak truth to power" when the king was not doing right by the "little people". As I was pointing out to Maryscott last night, the problem with being a prophet in that sense is that the job usually doesn't pay very well, and prophets often make a lot of people angry. But prophetic voices are very much needed to remind people of the issues that really matter. At B.R.E.A.D. meetings we often hear words from the prophets, reminding us that we are called to do justice. Martin Luther King, who can himself be seen as a prophetic voice, was known to call upon the words of the Hebrew prophets: "Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream," said the Prophet Amos. He was seeking not consensus but the cleansing action of revolutionary change. America has made progress toward freedom, but measured against the goal the road ahead is still long and hard. Bloggers can play the role of prophet sometimes, in that we are often decrying some injustice and (hopefully) mobilizing people to address that injustice. What about kings? Well, bloggers, it seems, occasionally aspire to be kingmakers. In a February 16 article in Salon entitled Fighting Words, Joan Walsh asked Maybe I'm the one who's naive, but the whole episode made me wonder: What does it mean if liberal bloggers aren't warriors for the truth, but rather for candidates? What does it mean for media, and what does it mean for politics? If you read the article, you'll see that Ms. Walsh is (or was, as of February 16) yet another columnist who hasn't received the memo that the proprietor of Daily Kos is not a liberal. But the question she raises is worth considering. I think at the most basic level it is important to have full disclosure about any financial ties between bloggers and campaigns--when such ties exist. But I also hope that we can start to make the media more aware of the diversity among bloggers on the "left". And that many of us have no desire to play the role of kingmaker, precisely because we place a higher value on our ability to continue "speaking truth to power".

Markos, you're fired

I guess it all depends on what you consider to be "obscene". I'm not overly fond of "f-bombs", and tend to use them sparingly, if at all. But I'm less fond of hypocrisy, double standards, and community rules that are applied idiosyncratically. Today, Maryscott O'Connor posted a response to the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on so-called "Partial Birth Abortions". It was filled with righteous outrage, and, yes, there was that f-word in the title. As discussed in the post I just linked, and in this follow-up, there is no stated *rule* at Daily Kos that profanity in diary titles is forbidden, only that it is "strongly discouraged". Markos changed the title of Maryscott's diary and removed it from the recommended list, even though well over 200 community members had recommended it. Just enforcing the rules he's set for his blog? Hardly. Or at least, hardly in any sort of consistent, unbiased manner. Stormbear found plenty of evidence of diaries with that same offending word that were posted in the past year. But I don't need to delve into all of that, as a number of people already have that covered. I will say that, in my humble opinion, this is a pretty clear example of some misplaced priorities. "Naughty words" in diary titles are a big deal, but death and rape threats against a females tech blogger can be dismissed as not worthy of your serious consideration? Not worthy of *any* effort on your part to discuss what positive steps you *would* be willing to support? Now, to me, *that* is pretty darn obscene. This all came on the heels of Don Imus being fired for his racist, sexist remarks, and somebody (sorry, I can't remember who, or where) said it was too bad we couldn't fire Markos. Guess that *would* be hard to do, since we never actually "hired" him. But, be that as it may, I've seen him and his site quoted by lazy reporters as "the view from the left". So, even though I never consented to "hiring" him as our spokesperson, I hereby announce that I am (symbolically) firing him. Representatives of the media, and Democrats seeking to do legitimate "netroots outreach", kindly take notice.

Blogging while female

I first learned about the crass, insensitive remarks of Markos Moulitsas in this post by skippy, and later found a post by Steven D at Booman Tribune. In a later diary, Steven included what Markos actually said: Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial shit, you'll get idiotic emails. Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats". [...] But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie. Since last night, I saw that skippy had updated his post with the following: addendum: feminazi, commenting over at echidne's blog, asks this question: i sent a email to http://www.mothertalkers.com/contactus asking them why they support misogynists through advertising. why don't you do the same? good idea! Except, I don't know how much choice they have, given that you see *this* at the bottom of the home page on that blog: © 2005, Kos Media, LLC I may be only a C-rate blogger (on a good day), but what do we *usually* do when we want to hold a public figure accountable for something they've said? Isn't it usually *their* advertisers that we write to? Or how about writing to some of the politicians and public figures who post diaries at Daily Kos. This Wikipedia article has a list. I wouldn't recommend this if Markos' remarks were a one time thing, but as shirlstars' comment here indicates, this is part of a pattern of behavior. See also: How not to be an asshole: a guide for men Why the lack of concern for Kathy Sierra ? Take Back the Blog! March, a My Left Wing essay by Bruce Godfrey of Crablaw's Maryland Weekly. Finally, as I noted here, I really haven't had it in me to do much blogging lately, and I'm still not feeling all that verbose at this point. But I do consider this to be an important issue, and, even if I don't manage to blog more about it, I'm going to make a point of adding relevant entries to my page of Google shared items, which you can find here.

Markos, are you *man enough* to apologize?

I haven't read Daily Kos for a few days, but this post by skippy caught my attention: shorter kos: come on, gals! take it like a man! markos weighs in on kathy sierra, the techie blogger who has been anonymously harrassed to the point of cancelling professional appearances out of fear for her own safety. Click here for the rest, and here for Steven D's post at Booman Tribune. It was from that post that I learned that the fear for her safety was due to receiving *death and rape threats*. Steven D also links to a number of other blog posts about the issue. I don't have much to add, other than the comment that *real* men aren't afraid to apologize. Real men have the courage to willingly say "my bad" when they screw up. You know who *does* have trouble doing that? I'll give you a hint...his middle initial rhymes with "Trouble you". Update: Steven D has a diary at Kos asking Why the lack of concern for Kathy Sierra? Yes, I'm breaking my own rule about not linking to Blogmart, but I've decided it would be worth it to helped the issue hit the recommended list on Markos' own blog.

Whatsoever you do to the least of these bloggers

This comment by wu ming got me thinking about something. It's not that I begrudge top bloggers their success, it's just that a bit of humility and graciousness can go a long way. The truth is, some people, in addition to whatever talent and effort they employ, really do get some lucky breaks. And I think the *right* thing to do when you get one of those lucky breaks is to use that opportunity to do some good, especially for the people who often have no voice. And I don't mean "little bloggers", but the people we often try to stand up for, even if it's not profitable, popular, or convenient. So, with apologies to the author(s) of the Gospel of Matthew... "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; receive your reward, the kingdom prepared for you with big comfy chairs, high speed internet. And free maid service, delivery of groceries, and state-of-the-art spam blockers. For I was a "z-list" blogger and you linked to my essay, I was an unknown in blogtopia, and you blogrolled me anyway. When I wrote stories about Darfur, election integrity, and racial and gender inequality, you said these were important issues, and helped them get the exposure they needed and deserved. Then the righteous will answer him, 'OMG! When did we link to your essay or blogroll you? We're *sure* we would remember doing that! And for that matter, when did we help you draw attention to those sorts of stories? The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these bloggers, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into an eternity with Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. And using a computer that crashes a dozen times a day. On a dialup connection. For I was an unknown blogger and you ignored me. I was a "C-list blogger" and you said you wanted to shoot me in the face. I posted about the issues I considered most important, you refused to give them airtime. And *then* you called me "fraudster" and "dirty hippy". They also will answer, "WTF? When did we call you names or bury those stories, or say we wanted to go all Cheney on you?" He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these bloggers, you did not do for me.'

Obama responds to claims that he "caved" to Bush

From the Union Leader: U.S. Sen. Barack Obama says he has not softened his position on Iraq, despite suggestions to the contrary from other presidential camps and liberal blogs. The Democratic presidential candidate took issue with a weekend report suggesting that he believes that if President George Bush vetoes a withdrawal bill, Congress should quickly provide full funding with no strings attached. Other campaigns privately pointed out the Associated Press report and questioned if Obama has changed his stance. The liberal blog Daily Kos carried a headline on Sunday stating, “Obama Caves to Bush.” ... He said it would be unacceptable for Congress “to fold up tent because the President vetoed the bill.” You can read the rest of the article here. Bryan at Buckeye State Blog has weighed in here and here about the way some of the big names in the Democratic blogosphere were piling on Barack Obama yesterday. P.S. How could I forget this? Sorry, Maryscott--I plead sleepy. I saw the article just as I was getting ready to go to bed, and wanted to get it posted. It was only after I'd posted the thing, as I was brushing my teeth, that I thought to myself, "Wait a minute--did that say "the liberal blog Daily Kos?" It's NOT A LIBERAL BLOG! Everybody who's paying attention knows that by now.

Two Wolves

Image from St. Martha and Mary Parish web site Some of you may have seen me write about my "bad wolf" in the past, but I can't remember the last time I actually shared the parable or teaching tale of the two wolves. Home again after school a grandson tells of his anger at a schoolmate who has taken his lunch from him. His grandfather replies, "Sit down, my boy. I, too, have felt a great hate for those who have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do. But, hate wears you down and does not hurt your enemy. I have struggled with these feelings many times. "It is as if there are two wolves inside me: one is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way. "But the other wolf is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights with everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. "It is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit." The boy looked intently into his grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?" The grandfather solemnly replied, "The one I feed." The reason I'm thinking about this story again is that there are a number of people out there in the "tubes" who seem to view the internet a great big all-you-can-eat buffet for their bad wolf. Booman wrote about this phenomenon in Don't Let the Paparazzi Get You Down. I haven't had much to say about it, beyond the occasional "mean people suck" (in the comments of the Booman post). I haven't been sure if there was anything helpful I could say. But I've watched as Maryscott checked in during the Rant of the Day or Open Thread at My Left Wing, reporting on the latest hideous thing that was being said about her on another blog. I've wanted to scream "Stop! Please stop doing this to yourself!" But I've refrained--first of all, because there are plenty of people already offering that service, and secondly, because I know it can't be easy to let people talk trash about you in public without trying to refute what they are saying. So my plan was that I was just going to tune out that sort of vitriol as much as possible, and try to focus my energies in a positive direction. But then I saw the twisted delight some posters took in browbeating Maryscott for not responding perfectly to a suicide note that was posted by her friend on the front page of My Left Wing. But the point is that she did respond, and, together with some mutual friends, helped to save a man's life. And at this point I feel like I have to say *something*. So, here goes... I will reconstruct this story to the best of my ability, piecing together the information I have gleaned from several diaries. A blogger who goes by the blog name beagleandtabby posted an essay entitled which began with the words "this is a suicide note", noting that he would be dead by the time anyone read his words. He apparently posted it directly to the front page. Maryscott and others immediately setting about trying to contact beagleandtabby as well as emergency services. I can't imagine what it would be like check my blog one morning and see something like that. My best guess is that there would be a rush of emotions, panic, fear for the worst, but also feeling compelled to do something, anything to try to avert the outcome. Even though, for all I knew, the deed had already been done. Speaking for myself, I know that I don't do very well when I'm in panic mode. I get physically clumsy and I find it hard to think clearly. I believe that Maryscott handled a difficult situation competently and compassionately. She took the alarming, heartwrenching post off the front page, but left it viewable in the community essays. But she changed the title so that people who knew the poster would recognize that the essay was indeed a cry for help (rather than philosophical musings about "life" in general, which one might plan to read "later".) She also posted at Daily Kos, because some of the people beagleandtabby mentioned by name in his letter were regulars there, and she wanted to get the necessary information to anyone who might possibly be able to help. This was a true crisis situation. Thankfully, Maryscott was eventually able to report: I called his father. His father called the police for details. The police had found him in time. He is the hospital, alive. That's the good news. The bad news, you can see by reading some of the updates Maryscott has added to her "He's alive" post, a number of posters from DKos have attacked her, calling her an "emotional vampire" for leaving the suicide note up, even though. But, as she goes on to explain, IF I HAD NOT, I would not have got his last known address, which the police used to track him to where he was eventually found. The police could do NOTHING with the cell phone numbers we had. IT WAS THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS THAT SAVED HIM. I saw the hateful comments that were posted at My Left Wing after Maryscott shared that her friend was indeed alive. Someone who had never posted at MLW before apparently signed up for an account for the express purpose of browbeating Maryscott over the way in which she responded to this crisis. I was livid. I planned to go to my computer and rate every single one of those comments as "Worthless Troll Douchebaggery", but the poster had already been banned (and those comments deleted) by the time I got home. I'm glad the poster was banned, but after such an emotionally exhausting day, Maryscott should never have been subjected to that kind of abuse. Of course, at the end of the day, the most important thing is that a life was saved, and beagleandtabby's father wrote: Words on a screen are senseless right now, but I would like to thank Maryscott for the 911 no matter what come in the days ahead. I have no plan or ideas. I only ask that those of you who know him and love him find a way to support him. In an update to the "He is alive" essay, Maryscott has reported that she has spoken to beagleandtabby. He has asked that his original post be taken down, and she has done so. She had taken down the diary at Kos earlier, because of the awful comments some people made. I've since discovered that, while the diary is gone, those comments are not. I only saw a couple of those comments, but I saw some very well fed "bad wolves". They were feasting. Think of the caricatures of Henry VIII ripping into a turkey drumstick with gusto. It was pretty disturbing. Sometimes it can be hard to look away from a grisly scene of destruction. But sometimes it becomes vital that we force ourselves to do just that. Because the more you get sucked in, the harder it can be to pull yourself away. Okay, only speaking for myself--*I* can have a hard time tearing myself away. And then I really enjoy seeing someone with a black belt in snark artfully taking down an obnoxious S.O.B. Ah, Schadenfreude--the breakfast (and lunch, and dinner) of bad wolf champions. But again and again, I have to remind myself--that's not the wolf I want to feed. And another thing--going back to that story. About that good wolf... ...one is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way. He or she is still a wolf. Still fights when it is right to do so, and in the right way. It's okay to be angry. We *should* be angry about the injustices in the world, and that anger should move us to positive action. "Good wolf anger" is a lot more likely to have that kind of positive outcome. I know this on some level, but occasionally it slips my mind. So from time to time, I'll have to remind myself, "Make sure you're feeding the right wolf."