I Have Blogstalkers

January 18, 2009

They’re always watching – that’s why I blog naked.

Still Hooked On Hopium

January 12, 2009


Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft, a criminal defense attorney and Obama supporter who frequently writes about people who were wrongfully convicted and other abuses of our criminal justice system, casually laid this rotten egg yesterday:

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said he would close Guantanamo during his first 100 days in office. This morning, on ABC‘s This Week with Stephanopoulos, he backtracked:

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the President-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true.

And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

Shorter version: It will close at some point, just not as soon as he promised.

She then goes on to ho-hum the news that Obama isn’t interested in prosecuting any Cheney-Bush war crimes either.  Glenn Greenwald gets kinda wordy but he nails it:

What he’s saying is quite clear.  There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law.  Why not?  Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it’s a defining attribute of being civilized).  But Obama wants to detain them anyway — even though we can’t convict them of anything in our courts of law.  So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created — presumably by an act of Congress — where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone’s detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished.   That’s what he means when he refers to “creating a process.”

It’s not surprising that Jeralyn takes the news that Obama is breaking yet another promise so lightly.  We’re only talking about war crimes, constitutional rights, due process violations, illegal detention and torture.  It’s not anything important like Troopergate.


UPDATE:  Jeralyn has a new post with sensible recommendations for closing Gitmo, leaving her 177 posts short of her Troopergate coverage.

(graphic courtesy of New Hampster)

Zombie Liars

November 13, 2008
This is your brain on Kool-aid
This is your brain on Kool-aid

(graphic by Joseph Cannon)

Judging by the comments to my previous thread about zombie lies, a few of the things I thought didn’t need to be said needed to be said.  That’s okay, that’s why the blogosphere is superior to the traditional (old) forms of media: immediate feedback and the ability to interact with readers.

The first thing I left unsaid was an explanation as to why we should build and maintain a one-stop reference site debunking Obama propaganda and Axelrovian talking points.  The election is over, so why dwell in the past?  Shouldn’t we move on and find new battles to fight?

If one of PUMA’s goals is going to be reforming the primary/caucus system so that what happened this year never happens again, we need people to know the truth.  Now honestly, if Barack Obama ends global warming, cures cancer, brings peace to the entire world and ushers in the greatest period of prosperity in our nation’s history, few people will care a whole lot about how he became President.  But if (when) his popularity drops down to G-Dub/Nixonian levels, they will be asking “How the hell did this empty suit get elected?”

Once upon a time the “progressive blogosphere” was the only place dedicated to telling the truth about Iraq and the Bush (mal)administration.  They called themselves the “reality-based community” because they refused to drink Dick Cheney’s Kool-aid or repeat his zombie lies.  Eventually the American people realized the media was lying to them, due in part to truth-telling bloggers.

But the meltdown of the progressive blogosphere is the reason why WE should build our own anti-propaganda database.  This past year we have seen far too many examples of respected bloggers tossing aside years of hard-earned credibility to worship Teleprompter Jesus.  Some were guilty of sins of commission, others committed sins of omission, but either way we obviously can’t count on anyone else to do the job and do it right.

The last point I neglected to make is that our goal is not to convince Axelrove’s paid bloggers and trolls to put down their sippy-kups and recognize that the clothes have no emperor, our goal is to counteract the lies that those zombies are spreading.  We don’t need to argue with them, when we see one of them squat and pinch-out a zombie lie on the carpet, we can cut & paste a zombie truth over it.  But when we encounter a real person who has been deceived by the lies and propagande spread by Obamanation, we won’t have to search for the antidote.


Zombie Lies

November 12, 2008


So I’m making a Wedneday morning hangover tour of Left Blogistan and I see this in a comment at TGW:

As for KO, telling Hillary that there was no mathmatical way for her to win without the superdelagates did not strike me as rhetoric but sense. She lost a long time before she conceded, to my point of view.

Well that just made the swollen cut above my right eye start throbbing like it had it’s own pulse.  How many times are we going to keep hearing the same zombie lie?  You can shoot it, stab it, chop off it’s head, burn it to a crisp and blow it to smithereens and then you turn around and here it comes again, shuffling along in search of brains to eat. 

I did what I always do when I see a zombie lie – I blasted it with truth and gave it both barrels:

Obama needed the SD’s to win just as much as Hillary did.

Hillary won the popular vote, and if the the RBC hadn’t given Obama all the undecided votes in Michigan (plus some of Hillary’s delegates) she would have had the pledged delegate lead too.

But as I was typing out my response I was thinking how sick and tired I am of zapping zombie lies.  I’ve also believed that most advances in human history were not the result of hard work, they were the result of lazy guys like me trying to avoid hard work.  Then it struck me that we need to fight zombie lies with zombie truths.

We’ve known for a long time that Obama trolls are incapable of thought in the Cartesian sense (“Cogito, ergo sum”) so they rely on Axelrovian talking points (aka zombie lies) to provide semi-coherent content to their inane postings.  But those same zombie lies form the Kool-aid katechism of the sippy-kup kingdom that all Obama cultists undergo during indoctrination (“coming to Obama”)

Many of us have been engaged in discussions online or in real life and seen the sippy-kup kidz recite the same rote zombie lie, word-for-word.  A few of the more creative Obamanationals change a word or two but usually it’s spoken or typed in a memorized cut & paste monotone.  What we need is a set of zombie truths that are easy to access and effective.  If you see a zombie lie, go to your bookmarks, click on the zombie truth page, copy the appropriate zombie truth and paste it into your reply.  A printable version would be handy for those of us who aren’t surgically grafted to a computer.

But like I said, I’m lazy.  So I want y’all to do the hard work for me.  Tell me what zombie lies you keep seeing and your standard response (if you have one.)  Then I can compile and edit (cut & paste) them into a single post that you can bookmark.  Depending on the zombie lie, we might want a short and long zombie truth response.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.  If someone else has already come up with a good answer, we can use it (giving them proper cred) but let’s try to make this our thing.  If the zombie lie is something like these:

I didn’t see the misogyny. I still don’t see it from KO.


As for Obama , I don’t think there wasn’t sexism from many people in the process but the fact that Obama said Hillary was likeable enough was not a strike at her gender.

the appropriate response may include a link to a site like Shakesville where examples of misogyny by KO and BO are detailed. 

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wasted time trying to relocate stories or sources so I can cite them in a post.  Many times the search has ended in frustration because the info has been moved or scrubbed.  Teh Google is not always your friend, sometimes it provides too much information. a virtual haystack containing a single needle.

Although the campaign is over we will be seeing the same old zombie lies for years, as well as lots of new ones.  Let’s create and maintain a one-stop reference for countering the propaganda, lies and spin that will be fed to us by Obamanation.  As I write this in a stream of semi-conciousness it occurs to me that this should be a PUMA priority.  This is not a one-person, one-post project, it’s a project that will take time and dedication and will utilize a variety of skills.  Some of you may not enjoy writing but you have mad skills at cataloging or organizing databases. 

What do you think?

That’s the DUMBEST fucking thing I ever heard!

November 4, 2008


My former homepage blog has degenerated into parody.  From Mandos:

If you are one of those who are deliberately planning not to vote, fine. It’s actually a choice I respect. Someone convinced me a while back that there are cogent reasons for checking out. But if you’re going to vote, vote Obama. And if you’re going to abstain out of anger at Obama, vote Obama.

Yes, even if you think he stole the primaries. Even if you think that he used false accusations of racism to destroy the primaries. Even if you think that his supporters make use of misogyny. Even if you hate Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s guts (and there’s lots of reason to do so). Even if you think that the RBC thing was messed up and an enormous case of pants-on-fire cheating. Even if you think he is the Manchurian Candidate, or at least an empty suit. Even if you think his backers negated your primary vote. Even if you detest the pernicious influence of Kos. Even if you really, really want to field dress the horse he rode in on. Even if you think he’s no progressive or lefty or what have you (he isn’t).

Why? Because it’s turned out that meta matters. The American public is by and large in favour of a social-democratic policy consensus. But that doesn’t necessarily effect how things go at the ballot box. How things go at the ballot box is related to all kinds of meta issues. And the meta that matters now is that, regardless of the truth of the matter, it is widely held that Obama is winning on a populist platform. That perception is the 0.0001% margin you get out of the elections, even if it is very likely that you’ll get nothing else.

Because it’s unlikely you’ll get anything else. Except perception. Perception is how the game is played. And it is a game, no matter that it involves people’s lives, and no matter whether you like it or not. Chances are, the world is going to be worse after the election than before no matter who wins, but that’s not the point. Building perceptions is. Meta.

I guess if we can’t stop it we should just lie back and try to create the perception we enjoy it, right Mandos?  As for “meta,” you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means: 

Meta (from Greek: μετά = “after”, “beyond”, “with”, “adjacent”), is a prefix used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.


A meta-answer is not a real answer but a reply, such as: “this is not a good question


Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory which is the theoretical consideration of its meta-properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility.

In addition to a prefix, “meta” is sometimes used as an adjective (“that statement was meta”).

“Meta” is not a noun, it is either a prefix or an adjective that modifies a noun.  Unless you attach it to another word or use it to modify a noun, it is a meaningless term. 

Thank-you Lambert, for banning me from your blog.  I mean that sincerely, because I would hate to be associated with the farce it has turned into.  Every day there are examples of religious bigotry, unhinged Palin Derangement Syndrome, false accusations of racism and/or hypocrisy.

If that’s PB 2.0, I want nothing to do with it.

Don’t believe everything you read

October 26, 2008


     I saw a link to a post at Taylor Marsh and some intuition made me click on it.  The post concerned a letter from someone claiming to be a former PUMA:

Dear Taylor, I wanted to write to you and apologize for things I’ve thought and said in the past after our primary elections were over. I admit, I was very very mad at you for not going along with what I know believe was a staged GOP chaos operation. I don’t feel good about myself or my actions being involved in a group that was nothing but full of lies and hate and looked at people like me as disposable if I no longer went along with their agenda. I feel disgusted, sad and just icky. If I could take the last few months back, I would. I am saddened and ashamed of my actions and behavior. I want to say I am deeply sorry for things I’ve either posted here out of anger or elsewhere. I wrote the following as a way I hope I can roughly explain my horrible experience with the so called PUMA group. Take care.

The last couple months I started to get the feeling these were not even Hillary supporters, much less Democrats. I found them parroting Rush talking points, posting articles from Free Republic and even throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus. I’ll never forget one thread where Hillary was fundraising for Obama. Two supposedly Hillary P.U.M.A. said she looked haggard and unattractive. I began to see the months I spent fighting misogyny along side people I thought were on my side be wasted and flushed down the drain. They also continued to insinuate Hillary was a weak woman and being controlled by Obama, that she doesn’t really support him, only doing what she is told to do. …

… Over the last couple months I noticed my favorite Hillary board begin to change. Republicans were made moderators and the new members vs old members was 2:1….

… I had posts deleted for pointing out Sarah Palin supported giving $150 per severed wolf paw in Alaska that was killed from an aerial plane. I had posts deleted that said trickle down economics doesn’t work. I had posts deleted that showed McCain favors giving tax cuts to the wealthy while Obamawants to give a break to the poor and middle class. I was told by Hillary supporters that McCain has a better tax plan AND healthcare plan than Obama. When I said no and pointed out reasons why..you guessed it..my post was deleted. Right there was my proof these were never Hillary supporters. …

I would like to thank the P.U.M.A.s for making me wake up before it was too late. … … …

(emphasis added)

I’m assuming that the ellipsis marks [. . .] were placed there by Ms. Marsh to indicate missing text.  Now Taylor supported Hillary during the primaries but promised that she would support Obama if he became the official nominee.  I’m not going to criticize her for keeping that promise, even though I chose a different path.

But when I saw that letter I recognized it from a post I saw while wading through some sewage early this morning:

Read the rest of this entry »

Strawmen and Smears

October 25, 2008

A few weeks back a blogger we admire named Anglachel surprised a few of us slamming The Confluence in this post:

Back in early June, I condemned the willingness of pro-Hillary supporters to deliberately take up the racist, ratfucking bullshit of the Right to spread smears about Michelle Obama, in Visceral Reactions. The epicenter for this type of assault was (and remains) No Quarter, run by a Republican (Hillary supporter or not) and very friendly to Republican interests. Recently, The Confluence has begun serving up the same ugly mix, which is why I have dropped it from my blog roll and will have nothing to do with PUMA. The current set of posts (no, I will not link to them) serves up a toxic brew ostensibly about the current financial market and Obama’s connections to it, but is actually little more than regurgitation of the Republican racist assault on equal opportunity lending.

There is an obvious reason she did not link to (or quote from) the posts she is referring to – they don’t exist.  Oh, dakinkat and Lady Boomer put up some excellent and informative posts on the financial crisis, but not one of them was a “regurgitation of the Republican racist assault on equal opportunity lending.”  Wouldn’t you expect such a serious charge to be backed up be specific evidence? 

Today Anglachel posted this:

As I read the newspapers and the blogs about the mortgage meltdown, a certain pattern is emerging. Toxic mortgage = subprime mortgage = low income borrower = minority borrower.

I read her post several times, and it’s one of the prettiest strawmen I’ve ever seen.  Now I’ll be honest, I don’t know shit about economics.  I can’t even balance a checkbook.  But I can play connect the dots, and Anglachel hasn’t connected the dots.

Nowhere in her post does she provide an example of anyone, on the left, right or center making the case that minority borrowers were the cause of the mortgage meltdown.  She alleges that there is a “pattern” that appears in newspapers and blogs, but doesn’t back up that allegation with a shred of proof.  It doesn’t matter how good a job she does of disproving that allegation, because it’s just a strawman argument. 

I’m still not ready to address her two earlier posts, which included this astounding claim:

Alegre and Red Queen have recent posts up about the basic fact that rape is a problem with men. It is something you men evidently enjoy doing and don’t really want to see stop happening, though perhaps you’d prefer it not happen to your current female, unless you’re the one doing it.

The word that comes to mind when I read that is misandry.

How low can they go?

October 24, 2008

As noted in the previous post, the young woman in Pittsburgh lied to the police about being attacked.  That story is disgusting, but this is worse:

Earlier today, John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News, commented on his blog there that “this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

“If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.”

(emphasis added)

Let’s see, 20 year-old female McCain volunteer tells police she was attacked because of the “McCain” sticker on her car.  Initial reports treated the story as true, the McCain campaign expressed sympathy, some people on both sides expressed skepticism.  Others who believed the young woman felt that the very real misogyny emanating from Obamanation was to blame, but no one I saw proclaimed that Obama’s “quest for the presidency was over.”

Today the young woman recants, and admits she lied.  Her motive for lying has not been reported, but she is obviously disturbed.

Media conclusion:  It’s all McCain’s fault.

Of course Teleprompter Jesus isn’t even responsible by the media for the things he himself does and says, let alone what one isolated supporter does.

With “Friends” Like These . . .

October 23, 2008

So I’m over at TGW and I see a post on how this election may increase the percentage of women in Congress from 16% to 19% and I decide to post this comment:

Gravatar I was still a kid when “Women’s Lib” supposedly happened. That was damn near four decades ago.

By this point women should occupy something like 45%-55% of elected offices.

I didn’t figure that was controversial, but this morning I see this response from someone named “Zee”:

myiq! A foray here, how exciting. However…after a quick look at your webpage, you may be related to Mormons who are “good people” but the cult definitely deserves to crash and burn. I’m sorry, yeah, I hate all religions as they are mostly paternalistic crap, but some, such as Islam where they practice gender apartheid to the point where male firefighters let schoolgirls burn to death rather than TOUCH them and the MORMONS, where the men are “gods” of their own planets in their ludicrous afterlife and women just part of a harem to pump out ghost babies to populate said planets, deserve all the ridicule they get and then some.

“Tolerance” is bullshit in these cases.

Zee was referring to this post of mine, where I called out a commenter at Corrente for religious bigotry against Mormons.  here was my response to Zee:

After we round up the Moslems and Mormons, do we gas them with Zyklon-B and burn the bodies?

Yeah, I Godwined, but I thought it was appropriate.  I don’t know who “Zee” is, and frankly I don’t want to know, but I’m assuming that TGW doesn’t endorse or share Zee’s views.  I’m not endorsing Mormonism, Islam or any other religion.  I practice heathenistic hedonism, but that’s because it scares away the Jehovah’s Witnesses and leaves my Sundays free for watching football.

Freedom of religion (which includes freedom from religion) isn’t just a liberal value, it’s a constitutional right.  Us lefties have demonized Christian conservatives for being intolerant of other religions, and we have seen charges of racism made whenever someone suggests that Obama is a Moslem or even when they use his arabic middle name.

But for the second time in two days I see someone spouting religious bigotry on a supposedly progressive blog.  The first one was more disturbing because despite numerous responses not one person called it for what it is.  It’s bigotry:

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

Bigotry, whether in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, religious intolerance or even partisanship is WRONG.  Progressives used to have principles.

Liberals still do.

Religious Bigotry? Bringiton!

October 22, 2008

What else do you call this except religious bigotry?:

The Republicans are liars, remember? All the Pro-8 ads that have been running are filled with lies, thanks to the Mormon cash, and like Dominionists the Mormons by faith believe that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to achieve “God’s” ends.

I’m related to some Mormons.  Some Republicans too.  They are all good people, and unlike the person quoted above, there is no bigotry in their minds or hatred in their hearts.  Sadly, this isn’t the first time Corrente has permitted some truly deranged posts and comments.  And as I said before, the partisanship trap is intellectually lazy and bad for our nation. 

I would have left a response over at Corrente but Lambert kicked me out for making his blog look bad.  So much for the high ethical standards of PB 2.0 

Progressives used to have principles.  Liberals still do.