METAPHOR FOR THE TROLLS WHO ANNOY PROGRESSIVE ERUPTIONS AND EVERY BLOG WHERE THEY LEAVE THEIR IMAGINARY GRIEVANCES

Attention all trolls--and you know who you are:  This is what you look and sound like when you go on the attack at other people's blogs.

A BLESSED KRISTALLNACHT TO ALL

By (O)CT(O)PUS

When I first thought of this post, I didn’t know what to call it. My intention was to recognize a conservative blogger for her courage and strength of character in withstanding a deluge of criticism from fellow conservatives.

I decided to take a generic approach because this post is no longer about the subject blogger but about a more widespread and pernicious phenomenon: The subculture of invective, dishonest hyperbole, and slash-and-burn character assassination that has metastasized into our political life, our media, and our online interactions.

This is not the first time your liberal (O)CT(O)PUS has defended a conservative blogger. Last year, another conservative blogger asked a fair question: Do we really want President Obama to fail? Since liberals and conservatives alike are riding in the same ship of nationhood, she asked, do we really want to sink the entire boat? An intellectually honest question, I thought, but not according to rabid reactionaries who accused the writer of spreading apostasy and treason.

Rightwing critics disparage the term political correctness as a Marxist plot whose aim is to undermine conservative values and impose social conformity. The linguistic argument is one more front in the so-called culture wars. Yet, the same rightwing critics employ a far more sinister version of political correctness. They make use of litmus tests to enforce ideological orthodoxy in thought, speech, and personal associations. They will not hesitate to browbeat fellow conservatives into submission with condemnation and excommunication. How ironic! The rightwing accuses the left of using political correctness to impose social conformity; yet, the same rightwingers use coercive means to enforce groupthink within their ranks.

This post has a background story in two parts. Part One begins with Shaw, our fellow Swash Zone colleague, who asked me to look after her weblog in her absence while she underwent cancer surgery. In due course, I enlisted mutual friends including one conservative writer as guest contributors. There were no constraints or guidelines imposed on any writer; and there were no objections from Shaw for any contribution on her behalf.

Part Two: This drama moves to the weblog of our conservative friend, who posted a simple holiday greeting, A Blessed Christmas to All. As expected, her comment thread filled with good wishes from followers of all persuasions … until a few days ago when one reader discovered her name as a contributor on Shaw’s weblog:

[Name redacted] said: “I saw your name on the Progressive Eruptions blog as one of the contributes [sic] to that FILTH (…) If you wish to be part of that commie-Marxist blog then so be it. That's your mistake and I for one won't be part of it or of this. And I hope that my fellow republicans [sic] will feel the same way.”

To assuage whatever demons my invitation had summoned, I replied:

“[Name redacted], if you want to blame someone for putting [her] name on the contributor list at Progressive Eruptions, blame me because I am the one who invited her (…) The civil and respectful thing to do is give [name of conservative friend] an appropriate greeting in keeping with the holiday spirit. So be a human being, a mensch, and do the right thing.”

The story should have ended here, but it did not. Within a day, another reader left this comment: “Goo [sic] there if you wish or if you must [[name redacted], but I will not be a follower.”

As chum in the water attracts predatory sharks, news of my friend’s so-called “defection” spread across conservative Cyberspace: “I too am disappointed in you [name of my conservative friend]. But like someone else here has said. [sic] we have to do what we have to do. And I too must do what I must do.”

When chatting with rightwing reactionaries, there is nothing to be gained in talking about helping a friend in need, about acts of kindness and compassion, about appealing to our higher angels, or pointing out what separates human beings from savages. There is no profit in mentioning freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom to associate, or in pointing out the shared American legacy that binds us together. Trust me: Every attempted outreach drew an inflamed response, as examples:

SLIME-BUCKETS … libtards … I’m sick of people like YOU … liberal holier than thou crap … The only standards liberals have are double standards … house flies … STUPID … the infectious horrible disease known as Liberalism … terrorist sympathizers … stupid and ignorant … filthy mouthed JERKS … take a hike … (O)CT(O)PUSSY …

Returning to the subject of political correctness, liberals prefer the term cognitive linguistics to describe the framing effect of language and word-choice in shaping the attitudes and actions of speakers and listeners. In concept, the abuse and misuse of language contributes to negative stereotypes that can restrict the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of people. One goal of cognitive linguistics is to render pejorative labels as socially unacceptable, thus encouraging us to view individuals on their merits as opposed to stereotypes.

There are critics who regard political correctness as a “euphemism treadmill.” And there are defenders who view those dismissals as a distraction to avoid a debate about racism, sexism, and other forms of class discrimination and inequality.

In his book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, David Neiwert takes cognitive linguistics a step further:

Rhetorically, [eliminationism] depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and disease-like cancers on the body politic.

(…)

It is by small steps of meanness and viciousness that we lose our humanity. We have the historical example of 20th fascism as a reminder. The Nazis … didn’t get that way overnight. They did this by not simply branding their opponents as the Enemy, but by denying them their essential humanity, depicting them as worse than scum – disease-laden, world destroying vermin, in desperate need of elimination.

In short, reactionary ideas and talking points have infected public discourse to such a degree that it is poisoning how we treat each other in our daily lives. It is a political subculture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of outright elimination of the opposing side through suppression, condemnation, ostracism, or extermination.

On July 27, 2008, Jim David Adkisson entered a Unitarian Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, killed two people, and wounded seven others. The shooter was motivated by hated of liberals, Democrats, African Americans, and homosexuals. A police search of his home found: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity, and other hate literature (source).

Liberal-bashing trolls harassed my friend on home turf and defiled her holiday message. Make no mistake. My friend has fallen victim to reactionary rhetoric as much as any liberal, or any other group targeted by this rabble. Perhaps one of her moderate followers said it best:

Seems your "friends" don't think you have the strength of your convictions. That you will somehow be "turned" or "brainwashed." That just by engaging with liberals you will be tainted and changed (…) How silly (...) She doesn't back off her beliefs. She knows irrationality when she sees it. She knows how to be a "true" friend (…) How many times has [she] asked her readers to cut the ad hom (…) you deserve better "friends" [my bold].

Cross-posted from The Swash Zone.

BIG DICK CHENEY EXPOSED FOR HIS LIES, DISTORTIONS, AND MISINFORMATION

UPDATE BELOW.

The scurrilous accusations and blatant lies that Cheney has been blow-harding all over the cable networks since the Underpants Bomber incident are so easily refuted, that one wonders if he has truly gone all funny in the head, because no one in his right mind would make such a pitiable fool of himself the way that this unfortunate ex-vp has over the last few weeks, spreading stupid, easily discredited falsehoods about Mr. Obama and his policies and statements on terrorism and terrorists.

Here are some of the lies Cheney has engaged in:

Mr. Cheney said that the Chritstmas attempted airline bombing incident had made "clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war."

But there is no clarity or truth whatsoever in that muddy Cheney lie because here is what President Obama has actually said:

"Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." 

On Saturday, in his weekly radio address, Mr. Obama:

"Disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that "0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations."

Let's look at more statements from President Obama condeming terrorists and their vicious attacks:

On the Mumbai bombing of last November:

"These coordinated attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate the grave and urgent threat of terrorism. The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks."

Joint statement by President Obama and India's Prime Minister Singh:

"Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognized that the India-U.S. partnership is indispensable for global peace and security. In this context, the interests of both countries are best advanced through the values mirrored in their societies.


They acknowledged the common threat that international terrorism poses to regional and global security. They condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and declared that there could be no justification for terrorism anywhere.


On the eve of its first anniversary, President Obama reiterated the United States’s condemnation of the terrorist attack in Mumbai in November 2008. The two leaders underscored the absolute imperative to bring to justice the perpetrators of this terrorist attack.


They expressed their grave concern about the threat posed by terrorism and violent extremists emanating from India’s neighborhood, whose impact is felt beyond the region. The two leaders agreed that resolute and credible steps must be taken to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries that provide shelter to terrorists and their activities. These undermine security and stability in the region and around the world."

Joint statement by President Obama and Russia's President Medvedev:

"We agreed that al-Qaida and other terrorist and insurgent groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan pose a common threat to many nations, including the United States and Russia.  We agreed to work toward and support a coordinated international response with the UN playing a key role. We also agreed that a similar coordinated and international approach should be applied to counter the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan, as well as illegal supplies of precursors to this country. Both sides agreed to work out new ways of cooperation to facilitate international efforts of stabilization, reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, including in the regional context."

From Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post:

"The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists. He said it as a candidate. He said it in his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." He has said it since."

The Washington Post states in its January 3, 2010 editorial:

[Mr. Obama] "also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there."

What then do we make of  the recent statements from Cheney?  Is there no one around him to gently point out his apparent dementia?  What else can explain how insane his easily discredited lies are?  There are pages and pages on Google to prove him wrong, and dozens of bloggers, columnists, and others who can document and prove Cheney to be a bald-faced and treacherous liar.  And it is treachery--to willfully lie about this presidents recorded statements on terrorism and terrorists--for what purpose?  Political gain? To undermine Mr. Obama's presidency, which in turn would undermine our national security?

Richard Bruce Cheney is a disgrace to the office of the vice presidency and to this country.

UPDATE FROM POLITIFACT:


"Cheney's comments echo a frequent criticism by conservatives that President Obama does not use the phrase "war on terror." We rated that True when it was made by talk show host Sean Hannity in November 2009. We noted in our ruling that Obama had said he didn't use the more general phrase "war on terror" because he viewed the conflict as a war against "some terrorist organizations."

With his statement to Politico, Cheney is going farther than Hannity did, directly alleging that Obama will not "admit we're at war."
But a review of Obama's statements of the past year makes it clear he has often said the United States is at war against terrorist organizations.

The fifth paragraph of his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

In a February 2009 CNN interview: "I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations."

In a March 2009 speech: He said that people might ask why the United States is at war and said, "Al-Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan."

In his December 2009 speech at West Point on his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan: He repeatedly called it a war and said, "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida."

In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize: He said that "we are at war" and noted that "the world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense."

Cheney has offered lots of criticism of Obama in the past year (of the claims we've rated, 

Cheney has earned a True and a Mostly True). His remarks here go beyond opinion because he repeatedly says that Obama won't acknowledge that the United States is at war. But even a cursory examination of Obama's statements shows this one is preposterous. Obama has often said the United States is at war against terrorist organizations -- and has ordered a massive increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight that war. So Cheney's comment isn't just False, it's ridiculously so. Pants on Fire!"

 

APPARENTLY, A CARTOON OF SARAH PALIN

having her shoes shined by our bi-racial POTUS has been circulating around the "intertubes," by certain elements of the GOP who believe it is hilarious.

In the interest of "fair and balanced" cartooning, we present a more accurate representation of reality:

ANDREW SULLIVAN,

writing in the LondonTimesonLine, has an interesting perspective on Mr. Obama's first year (almost) in office, what he has done, and what he is trying to do:

Inch by inch, Barack Obama is moving mountains

"Despite deep resistance, the president is gradually shaping America

 Between Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, it wasn’t such a good December for idolised, lean, brown golfers. Tiger, however, can hide. Barack, alas, cannot. The venom against Obama has been right up there with that directed against, well, Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson ... America is, after all, a tough political arena.

 The right treated the Senate passage of health insurance reform — a bill that essentially subsidises private health insurance for the working poor — as if it were the new dawn of bolshevism. Actually, that would be too mild. “Two-thirds of the country don’t want this. And one-third of these jihadists, these healthcare jihadists, do,” opined the Republican commentator Mary Matalin.

 The left, however, was no kinder. Many leading liberal lights called for the bill to be killed because it gave too much to insurance and drug companies and failed to provide a publicly funded alternative to private insurance. The columnist Arianna Huffington lamented: “If the miserable Senate healthcare bill becomes the law of the land, it’s only going to encourage the preservation of a hideously broken system.”

 My favourite splutter came from the Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson, who declared the entire bill an encomium to Obama’s self-centredness. “It is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved ‘universal’ health insurance,” Samuelson inveighed. Then — hilariously — he added: “To be sure, the [proposals] would provide insurance to 30m or more Americans by 2019.” What did the Romans ever do for us?


The bill is not perfect and will need work in the next few years — on cutting some entitlements and controlling costs in other ways. But the law remains largely what Obama promised in the campaign.
As with most attempts to judge Obama, a little perspective helps. So let’s review, shall we? This is the biggest single piece of social legislation in 40 years. The Congressional Budget Office predicts it will indeed insure 30m people."


Link to the rest of Andrew Sullivan's article.

As we all know, the Right came out, just after Mr. Obama was sworn into office, and, with eye-popping rage, bellowed to their fellow Americans their wish that Mr. Obama would fail as president.

This, of course, is how frustrated juveniles behave when something doesn't go their way. 

Just witness the Spittle Fleckers who regularly visit this blog, demanding I write about what they want, and not what I choose to write about on my own blog.  That is, for the most part, what the opposition to Mr. Obama engages in--not reasoned, fact-based criticism--but howling lunatic charges of Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, doomsdayism and every other fanatical, baseless idiocy human beings can think up.  It is their foot-stomping insistence that we liberals should hate the president as crazily as they do, and that ideologically bankrupt behavior is why fewer and fewer Americans identify with the GOPoNO, the Grand Old Party of NO!

Reporting on the new ABC/Washington Post poll has mostly focused on support for a public health care option. But the poll also shows that, while Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling Democratic initiatives in Congress, they have not managed to rebuild their party.

Only 20 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republicans -- the lowest number since 1983.

"These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP's behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today," wrote Chris Cillizza.


Link

DAN PFEIFFER, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, ANSWERS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, BIG DICK CHENEY

 Dick Cheney is a liar and a disgrace.  He hates Mr. Obama more than he loves his country, for who else but an embittered old man, whose approval ratings as vice president were lower than cholera, would publicly state untruths that can so easily be refuted and shown to be the demented political posturings of a man who was second in command as the debacle of Iraq and the infiltration of al Qaeda in that country took place, and as al Qaeda's presence grew in Afghanistan while valuable military resources were redirected to a country that did not attack us on 9/11.

Cheney needs to remember which president and vice president's neglect seeded the quagmire that is now Afghanistan and the reemergence of the menace that is al Qaeda.  He also needs to take his Metamucil more often.

Update:   Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) blasted Cheney today, saying "that the apparent leaders of the al Qaeda cell in Yemen were 2 terrorists who were released by Vice President Cheney in secret." "I think there's a level of accountability that has to be levied personally on the vice president," said Massa.

The Same Old Washington Blame Game

Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on December 30, 2009 at 03:34 PM EST

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day.  I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.  It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia.  And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO A VERY SPECIAL SISTER

Today is my big sister's birthday, and it falls on a blue moon!  She's very special and it is only fitting that her very special birthday is the same day as a blue moon.

Love you, sis!  Happy, happy birthday!

object width="425" height="344">

THE UNDERPANTS BOMBER, THE GOP, HYPOCRISY, AND MORE HYPOCRISY

 

UPDATE BELOW:

OH THE HUMANITY!


 By the way, Rep. Peter King, MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan and other conservatives had no problems with Richard Reid, the terrorist shoe bomber, being tried in federal court, but are having political pandering hissy fits over the underpants bomber being tried in federal court.


My friends, this is all about POLITICS and making POLITICAL POINTS.  The conservatives are monumental hypocrites, squawking and bellowing about trying the underpants bomber in federal court when they REMAINED SILENT OR ACCEPTED THE EXACT SAME POLICY for the shoe bomber, who is now in a maximum security federal prison in Colorado.


The Right is crazy.  That is the only explanation for their complete and hypocritical reversal on this issue from when they accepted it when Mr. Bush tried the shoe bomber in federal court.  They. Are. Crazy.


 And to all the Spittle Fleckers who came to my blog criticizing Mr. Obama for waiting a few days before discussing the incident, may I remind them all--hypocrites all--that not a partisan peep was heard from any of them when Bush waited SIX days to say ANYTHING about Richard Reid.


Bush Waited Six Days To Discuss Shoe Bomber With No GOP Complaints

The bellowing by Republicans over the Obama administration's supposedly lackadaisical response to the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit seems as much about political posturing as legitimate national security concerns.

How else to explain the GOP's relatively quiet reaction eight years ago to President George W. Bush's detached response after a similarly-botched terrorist attack?

On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid -- known more infamously as the shoe bomber -- failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. Nevertheless, President Bush did not directly address the foiled plot for six days, according to an extensive review of newspaper records from that time period. And when he did, it was only in passing.

The day of the attempted attack, for example, the Associated Press reported that "White House officials" were monitoring the situation throughout the afternoon and that "President Bush received two briefings" on the matter while at Camp David for the holidays. Spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, told reporters that administration officials were consulting with acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift -- the plane Reid boarded made an emergency landing at Boston's Logan International Airport.

"The White House has been monitoring the situation since early on today," McClellan said, according to a Washington Post article published on December 23. The lead statement came from Swift, who lauded the "heroic acts" of "the flight attendants and passengers who helped subdue the suspect."

h/t Democratic Underground

UPDATE ON MORE GOP HYPOCRISY:

Some of the same Republican lawmakers currently criticizing the President for softness on terrorism voted back in July 2007 against legislation that, among other reforms, provided $250 million for airport screening and explosive detection equipment.

The Improving America's Security Act of 2007 was a relatively non-controversial measure that effectively implemented several un-acted-upon recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. Eighty-five Senators voted in favor of the bill's passage. Seven missed the vote (several of whom were on the campaign trail, including Barack Obama, John McCain and Chris Dodd).

Eight Republican Senators, however, voted against passage, including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okl.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ari.).

More here at this link.

FactCheck.org Names Palin's "Death Panels" Lie Among Top Ten Whoppers of the Year

The Alaskan governor who quit her job has the distinct honor of having her "Death Panels" lie named as one of FactCheck.org's  top ten whoppers of 2009.  Palin's lie has already received the top prize for biggest lie of the year from PolitiFact, and now she is being recognized as a very good liar by the people at FactCheck.org for her gross falsehood on "Death Panels."

Congratulations, again, to Sarah Palin.

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all

Old North Church, Boston's North End

Peace

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GOVERNOR WHO QUIT, SARAH PALIN

for winning the prize for the biggest, baddest lie of 2009!  The award was given to her by the Pulitzer Prize winning blog, Politifact, after 5,000 people weighed in on the contest.  She won overwhelmingly for her pants on fire lie about "death panels" in the health care reform bill.  In a year where she assiduously helped John McCain lose a presidential election and then quit her job as governor only half-way through her term to spend more time with her money, it's good to see her come up a winner in something!

Good on you, Sarah!  I give her props for coming up with a really, really blockbuster of a lie.  She's good.  She's really, really good!

"Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.

"Death panels."

The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn't made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page.

Her assertion — that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care — spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings. Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, 

"Death panels? Really?"

The editors of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, have chosen it as our inaugural "Lie of the Year."

PolitiFact readers overwhelmingly supported the decision. Nearly 5,000 voted in a national poll to name the biggest lie, and 61 percent chose "death panels" from a field of eight finalists." (See the complete results.)

DOES JAMES CARROLL OF THE BOSTON GLOBE READ PROGRESSIVE ERUPTIONS??

TODAY’S DARKNESS is tomorrow’s light. Contemplations of the winter solstice once opened into religion, which is why the cultic festivals of light define the secular space this week. “Here comes the sun,’’ as the Beatles told us, and they could have been singing of Sol Invictus, the Roman sun god whose celebration was preempted by Christmas, songs of a different Son. Sure enough, the days will get longer now. Does it matter that the sun, actually, is not “coming,’’ but that the earth, in its elliptical revolution, only adjusts the tilt in its rotation? Contemplations of the solstice opened equally into what we call science.

[snip]

In the beginning, though, the winter cults by which the gods were worshipped were part of a generalized marking of the calendar that served the immediate purpose of survival. When humans had replaced opportunistic scavenging (“hunters and gatherers’’) with agriculture (planting and herding), close attention to the sun and other heavenly bodies became a necessity, since livestock take mating cues from the quality of light, and cycles of the harvest equally depend on celestial predictability. Knowing how the moon wanes and waxes, and where the sun is in relation to the horizon had become ways to fend off starvation. The creatures who honored the gods with light in winter were honoring their own ability to think.

Art, engineering, astronomy, physical exertion, social organization, and mysticism - such categories are rigidly distinct in our time, each a separate university “discipline,’’ different buildings, if not quads. Yet imagine how those skills came together, say, in the construction of New Grange, the man-made hill in Ireland that was assembled out of huge stones some 5,000 years ago. Defining a mound that probably served as a tomb, the small inner chamber has a narrow opening to the sky that was calibrated so precisely as to admit a needle of sunlight only at dawn on the winter solstice. The light, lasting minutes, illuminates delicately carved triple spirals that would, over millennia, be seen as triune symbols of male, female, child; birth, love, death; eventually of the Trinity, foreshadowing the Irish shamrock.

[snip]

But the festivals this week, sparked by this morning’s dawn, call to mind the age-old spaciousness of informed imagination. Happily, it remains so. Knowledge is holy. Season’s greetings.

James Carroll is a regular contributor to the Boston Globe.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, article on Constantine the Great:

"Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican."

Indeed "...from the beginning of the 3rd century "Sun of Justice" appears as a title of Christ"^[40]. Some consider this to be in opposition to Sol Invictus^{[citation needed]}. Some see an allusion to Malachi 4:2.
The date for Christmas may also bear a relation to the sun worship. According to the scholiast on the Syriac bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing in the twelfth century:

"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." ^[41] However, this statement directly conflicts with what we know of the early Christians, namely, that they were ridiculed, tortured, and cast apart from operative society precisely because they would not participate in the pagan feasts and celebrations. The early Christians set themselves directly in opposition to the paganism which ruled the day. "Since Christians worshipped an invisible God, pagans often declared them to be atheists."

Here Comes The Sun King

Welcome back to the Sun King!  The days will become longer, minute by slow, slow minute.  Evoe!

TO JUAN AT THE WINTER SOLSTICE by Robert Graves

To Juan at the Winter Solstice* by Robert Graves

There is one story and one story only
That will prove worth your telling,
Whether as learned bard or gifted child;
To it all lines or lesser gauds belong
That startle with their shining
Such common stories as they stray into.

Is it of trees you tell, their months and virtues,
Or strange beasts that beset you,
Of birds that croak at you the Triple will?
Or of the Zodiac and how slow it turns
Below the Boreal Crown,
Prison to all true kings that ever reigned?

Water to water, ark again to ark,
From woman back to woman:
So each new victim treads unfalteringly
The never altered circuit of his fate,
Bringing twelve peers as witness
Both to his starry rise and starry fall.

Or is it of the Virgin's silver beauty,
All fish below the thighs?
She in her left hand bears a leafy quince;
When, with her right hand she crooks a finger, smiling,
How many the King hold back?
Royally then he barters life for love.

Or of the undying snake from chaos hatched,
Whose coils contain the ocean,
Into whose chops with naked sword he springs,
Then in black water, tangled by the reeds,
Battles three days and nights,
To be spewed up beside her scalloped shore?

Much snow if falling, winds roar hollowly,
The owl hoots from the elder,
Fear in your heart cries to the loving-cup:
Sorrow to sorrow as the sparks fly upward.
The log groans and confesses:
There is one story and one story only.

Dwell on her graciousness, dwell on her smiling,
Do not forget what flowers
The great boar trampled down in ivy time.
Her brow was creamy as the crested wave,
Her sea-blue eyes were wild
But nothing promised that is not performed.

*This poem was written for Robert Graves' son, Juan, who was born on the winter solstice, and is about The White Goddess, which subject Graves wrote about extensively in his book of the same title.

THE WINTER SOLSTICE IS ALMOST HERE

Thank you to (O)CT(O)PUS and the community over at The Swash Zone for all your support and good wishes while I was away.  I'm feeling better every day, and the excellent news from my docs is that I am 100% A-OK.
 
I'm back to blogging; but because of the hectic week ahead, will be posting about light, seasonal subjects. ( I do want to say that I think we DO have a health care bill that will pass.  Let's see how that plays out.)

Meanwhile enjoy your families and friends and their good cheer and company during this holiday season.  And thank you all for your friendship and caring.

ANNOUNCEMENT

(O)CT(O)PUS will be away for the rest of the month … visiting my cephalopod brood and celebrating Fishmas.

Bloggingdino gave me permission to open my presents early, and this is what I got. It means I will be able to keep in touch while away, although posting and comments will be light.

Since I am pressed for time (packing the OctoMobile and getting ready to leave), here is a brief message from MoveOn.Org:



Cross-posted from The Swash Zone.

(O)CT(O)PUS IN THE NEWS

This video of an octopus commandeering a coconut appeared tonight on all major news networks, including ABC, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and WTFNN. What's the big deal? Shall I consider this an affront? An insult to my intelligence? Have you never seen an octopus commandeer a coconut before?

How ridiculous! But not as ridiculous as this:

Q: Why did the octopus cross the road?

A: To enslave humanity and save it from itself!

Cross-posted from The Swash Zone.

GOOD NEWS!

Just hours ago, I received email from Shaw who reports good news. Her surgery went well … perfectly in fact … and there is every reason to expect a successful outcome. According to Shaw, she is feeling stronger every day and has started taking walks in the neighborhood. She may even drop by and check on us, she says.

Shaw expresses her thanks to everyone for their participation and support. The special magic of this place is missing when the Lady of the Manor is away, and strange creatures from the deep are a poor substitute. Without doubt, I look forward to Shaw’s triumphal return.

Let me thank Pamela, Rockync, Infidel753, and Matt Osborne for lending a helping hand with their contributions.

In addition, my thanks go to Shaw’s loyal readers and followers who include: Arthurstone, Dave, Dmarks, James’ Muse, Jim, Libhom, Patrick, Puddy, Ruth, Susannah, TAO, Tom, Truth101, W-Dervish. If I omitted anyone in oversight, please accept my apologies.

One more request before (O)CT(O)PUS returns to the sea. If Shaw does make an appearance, please go easy on her. She still suffers from fatigue, she says. And please leave greeting for Shaw in the comment thread below.

The Domino Effect of our Banking System

As we know our Financial System took a major hit last year. Let’s take a little look see at how this played out, shall we…

The Community Reinvestment Act is a federal law that was passed in 1977 to “encourage” banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in ALL segments of their communities, which included low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress “felt” this law needed to be passed in order to prevent discrimination against low-income and minority borrowers.

There were Legislative changes made to the CRA over the years, but the most pertinent one, in my opinion, was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which required Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Basically this Act instructed Freddie and Fannie to divide its business into three categories: low and moderate-income, underserved, and special affordable. The goal was to increase home-ownership among minorities and the poor in rural and urban areas.


In November of 1999, a part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was repealed with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1993 which permitted commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies to consolidate. While The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a Republican backed bill, President Clinton said he would veto it unless it contained verbiage that would ensure banks wouldn’t cut back on mortgages to low income and minority borrowers.


Due to pressure from the Clinton Administration, in 1999 Fannie began issuing subprime loans, which increased the number of minority and low income home owners. The expansion of “easy credit” to home buyers with lesser ability to pay it back and then bundling them as securities made the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie and many others on Wall Street a lot of money, but also made our market quite unstable.

In 2000 Fannie Mae launched the American Dream Commitment, a ten year pledge to provide $2 trillion dollars in low-income and minority home financing. By March 2003 Fannie and their lending partners had fulfilled over half of their goal. Other lending partners included: Bank of America; Bank One Corporation; Charter One Bank; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Doral Financial Corporation; First Horizon Home Loan Corporation; Fleet Boston Bank; Huntington Mortgage Company; Irwin Mortgage; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; and Standard Mortgage Corporation and they were “applauded” for surpassing the halfway mark so quickly. Together they led the market in narrowing the homeownership gaps, increasing the availability of affordable housing and serving Americans of color and low-income.

The 2000 plan included $420 billion to help minority home financing but in 2002 it was increased to $700 billion in an “effort” to help “advance” the Bush Administration’s minority homeownership proposals. Fannie also met or exceeded HUD’s affordable goals for 9 consecutive years which included 52% of their business derived from low-income families; 33% derived from underserved families; and over 21% derived from very low-income families.


Fannie and Freddie loaned at first because they were pressured from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) who was under pressure from Congress. With repeal of part of the Glass-Steagall Act it gave financial institutions and insurance companies free reign without any over-sight to basically sell debt onto our market, and make large bonuses to boot, and now we Taxpayers are left holding the tab. In my opinion, the CRA and the Glass-Steagall Act were two big factors in the downfall of our financial system.


I am in NO way suggesting that any bank, investment company or insurance company discriminate due to skin color or ethnicity; however, I do NOT condone giving anyone a home loan, a credit card or a car loan if they are NOT able to pay it back. The desire to increase home ownership in low-income and minority neighborhoods is a noble cause, but it may not be a feasible one, considering the outcome of many of these “loans”. I believe everyone should have a place to live—a home; but I do NOT believe everyone is ENTITLED to OWN a house. The two are completely separate from one another.

I believe if Congress hadn’t pressured HUD and HUD hadn’t pressured the banking institutions and if the CRA wasn’t abused AND Glass-Steagall hadn’t repealed Gramm-Leach-Bliley we wouldn’t be sitting with this current banking mess. There is enough blame to go around, but I think it all began with Congress wanting to give something that wasn’t earned, i.e. the CRA.

A person must EARN a good credit score, regardless of skin color or ethnicity. Neither of which can be used against you on a credit application, by the way. HOWEVER your lack of a job; adequate funds; time with your employer; and past credit history MOST certainly do and those issues are NOT discriminatory. It’s time we stood on the facts and stopped being afraid of being called “prejudiced” when the FACTS prove otherwise; because as we can see, the results can be devastating.

I also don’t think that Government should be involved in every aspect of our lives, BUT over-sight IS important in certain areas, especially when large sums of money are involved. These Institutions, like AIG and JP Morgan should’ve had some kind of Clearing House. As it stands they did not and they got away with Billions.

And last, but certainly NOT least, when we Taxpayers bailed-out all these lame companies that placed us in this precarious situation there should’ve been stipulations on OUR money. It should NOT have been handed to them willy-nilly. As it stands we don’t know where it went and we don’t know why these banks aren’t lending. They SHOULD be lending and we should demand that they follow some rules. However, those decisions don’t seem to be up to us, although it’s our money.

Hopefully our Representatives on The Hill have LEARNED something! And they will begin to institute some REAL change. Change that will stop the corruption, not just on Wall Street and in Banking and Insurance Institutions, but in Congress, as well.

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND BOILED FROGS

Credit: AZRAINMAN

Whatever you call it, a silly anecdote or imperfect metaphor, the boiling frog story serves a useful purpose, and it goes like this. If you place a frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out; but if you place the same frog in cold water that is heated slowly, it will not notice the gradual rise in temperature but will stay in the water until it boils to death. No frogs were harmed in the writing of this post, but the boiling frog story is a useful metaphor to describe how people refuse to recognize a threat that occurs gradually.

Climate change deniers are akin to slow boiling frogs. For most folks, the climate change crisis is vague and impalpable. You cannot see it, touch it, or watch it happen on cable news. It lacks the immediate drama of a hurricane or tsunami. Climate change may not be noticed for a decade or even within a lifetime. Yet, it exists today as a set of observations and data points that are too arcane and abstract for most people to grasp. But make no mistake: Global climate change is here … a dark cloud hanging over the lives of our grandchildren and future generations. Despite the preponderance of data, there are skeptics, doubters, and boiled frogs. A case in point (source):

Double click on image to enlarge.

When a climate scientist looks at the above graph, the most obvious feature is the red [my addition] trend line. The above graph plots rising temperatures from different data sources. The skeptical boiled frog might look at these data and say: “So what! It proves nothing.”

There are two statistical concepts to bear in mind. Some data points conform to a pattern while others seem randomly spread. When data points fall outside a trend line, we call these “outliers,” a fancy word for random distribution. The skeptical boiled frog focuses on the random jitters and ignores the trend line. “So what,” croaks the frog, “Mother Earth has mood swings.” My point: Statistical outliers turn boiled frogs into outrageous liars.

Still skeptical? Next slide (Fossil fuel combustion as a component of total greenhouse gas emissions):

Double click on image to enlarge.

What this graph shows are the various types of greenhouse emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons from various sources. Most importantly, the graph shows the source of each greenhouse gas: From forest fires, from natural decay, from agriculture, from waste, and from fossil fuel combustion. Notice the large red area dominating the bottom half of the graph. This represents carbon dioxide as a product of fossil fuel consumption. What does this mean?

It means climate change is a man-made phenomenon. People burn fossil fuels in their cars, homes, and factories. Skeptical boiled frogs have claimed that greenhouse gases come from natural sources ranging from forest fires to flatulence or from the rise and fall of some geologically unknown Dow Jones. These data tell a different story. It means that more than half of all greenhouse gases (56% of total emissions) have a human origin. Hence, the term “anthropogenic,” meaning “caused by human beings.”

One more slide for a skeptical boiled frog (Spatial distribution of greenhouse gas emissions):

Double click on image to enlarge.

This color-coded map shows the distribution of carbon dioxide around the world. Notice how concentrations of CO2 emissions correspond with areas of human population density and, most especially, with areas having the highest levels of industrial output. These data confirm the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and human activity.

Overall, the latest observations show that globally averaged levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have reached new highs in 2008: Higher than those of pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 157% and 19%, respectively. Within the past 10 years alone, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased 26.2%.

Admittedly, the boiling frog story employs a flawed metaphor. Experience has shown that most frogs are too restless to sit still long enough for any pot of water to reach the boiling point. However, the definitive experiment was performed in 1869 by the German physiologist, Friedrich Goltz, who was searching for the location of the soul and demonstrated a fundamental truth. Frogs that have had their brains removed will remain in slowly heated water; whereas frogs with intact brains will promptly escape. Thus, I end my post on an obvious note: Climate change deniers, unlike their intact amphibian counterparts, are both brainless and soulless.

Cross-posted from The Swash Zone.