Sorting The Palin Family Laundry -- Updated

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.

Is It the Apocalypse?

Debut: My Left Wing Talk Radio

It's the maiden voyage of Maryscott O'Connor's My Left Wing Talk Radio on Blog Talk Radio.

Maryscott O'Connor hosts a show to discuss the godawful mess of a world in which we're living -- and what, if anything, we can do about it. And she'll probably end up talking about blogging -- a lot. Call-in listeners and live bloggers at MyLeftWing.com are essential. This show is designed to be INTERACTIVE; MSOC will respond to livebloggers and callers alike; so JOIN THE PARTY, people.

More details can be found here.

"The Opposite of Rape is Enthusiasm"

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing.

Buy at AllPosters.com

When Sara Wilson (not her real name), a 23-year-old woman was raped by a long time college friend, she found little support and a great deal of self doubt. Shortly after moving into her first apartment, Steve her former classmate, dropped in with a bottle of wine and some take out. One bottle of wine turned into two. Later that evening Sara suggested it was time for him to go. She remembers that out of the blue, "Steve was there kissing me. I tried to push him away but he just kept kissing me." Her head felt cloudy and hazy from the wine. Steve started to move her skirt up her leg. "I was telling him to knock it off, it wasn't what I wanted but I was so drunk. I definitely didn't want to have sex with him. We were friends for God's sake!" Sara recalls. But Steve did have sex with Sara that night. She remembers being pushed down on the couch. She remembers his hands on her shoulders. "It was like it was happening but not to me to someone else." The next day Sara awoke alone with her head throbbing to find a note on the kitchen counter from Steve. It read "I had a nice time. I'll call you later — S." Sara didn't know what to think but she knew what she felt — ashamed, betrayed, and embarrassed. Looking back at that morning Sara recalls, "I kept thinking how could this happen? I felt sick to my stomach and violated and I didn't use that word at the time, but looking back that's exactly what it was — a violation."

Late last night, or early this morning, depending on your timezone, thereisnospoon attempted to clarify statements that have earned him the moniker "thereisnorape." While I witnessed the original exchange -- much of which was subsequently deleted due to administrative error -- I have always thought said moniker was overstating his position. He absolutely did not say that rape did not exist. He simply narrowed the definition beyond what many of us particularly those of us who have lived experiences of date rape, would be comfortable with. Sadly, he has done little to diffuse such judgments with his most recent statement, nor, in my opinion, the discussion which followed.

what I said, very specifically (0.00 / 0)

was that women who are intoxicated and conscious and do not specifically say "no" to sex while intoxicated and conscious, should not be able to say later that they were unable to assent to sex because of their intoxication.

---

by: thereisnospoon @ Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:23:03 AM EDT

Dear god.

I cannot help but notice the total absence of the word "yes" in that statement. It is ideas like this which make necessary campus prohibitions against sex with any intoxicated person. Think of the latitude a fella gives himself by using such criteria as a guide. Well her eyes were open and she didn't actively resist, so... Sadly, for a fair number of men and boys, such passivity is an open invitation.

I contend that fundamental to this confusion is the idea that women "consent" to sex, rather than actively choose it. It is an ingrained notion; this idea that men should always be the pursuers, women the pursued, and that women have a responsibility to actively "opt out." It falls to us to be gatekeepers, responsible not only for our own sexual choices but for those of men who might want to fuck us.

A tip of the hat to the blogger formerly known as nonpartisan who introduced, into that heated discussion, the ideas of Hugo Schwyzer. Here is what that history and gender studies professor says about the word "no" when it comes to consent.

Most boys, for example, get the “no means no” message pretty loud and clear in high school and college workshops. It’s a worthy if basic message, and one well worth repeating over and over again. But as anyone who works around young people and sexuality will tell you, in and of itself a “no means no” reminder is woefully insufficient. Many of the young men and women I work with, for example, talk to me of what I’ve come to call the “stoplight” phenomenon. Traffic signals, of course, have three colors: red for stop, yellow for caution, green for go. Good drivers are taught to stop on “red”, which functions as a “no”. But of course, even at the busiest urban intersections, no light stays red indefinitely. If you wait long enough at a stoplight, every red will become green. And when all we do is teach young men that “no means stop” when it comes to sexual boundaries, we often send them the message that if they just wait long enough (or pester, push, nag, beg, play passive-aggressive games) they’ll get the “green light” they’re so hungry for. Good “sexual boundaries workshops” go beyond the “no means no” message.

That relentless cajoling will be familiar to many women and girls who have dated. I have also encountered a fair number of men who doubt that women enjoy sex enough to actively choose it. Having sex with a woman or girl who has been thusly cajoled tends to reinforce that notion. There comes a time, for many, paricularly young, girls, when they resolve that their resistance is futile, and finally lie back and think of England. Convince enough gals to have sex on those terms, and you will likely deduce that women are far less sexual than men.

Hugo Schwyzer again:

The message that needs to be repeated over and over again is this one: true consent is never tacit, it is never silent. Too many young men become date rapists by confusing silence with a clear, verbal affirmation.

Believe it or not, females do enjoy sex. If the woman you're with does not appear to enjoy sex, you really should consider the following possiblities:

• She doesn't want to have sex with you, but has consented because you wore her down.
• She is a rape and/or childhood sexual abuse survivor and has sustained significant damage to her sexuality. (This requires sympathy and patience.)
• She is asleep.
• She is dead. (This may sound over the top, but I have been with men who were so self-serving, that I'm quite certain they would not have noticed if I had been dead.)
  
• You are terrible in bed and incapable of interpreting meta-communication, so she has resigned herself to just getting it over with.
• She is too intoxicated to know quite what is going on.

Some but not all of the above are examples of rape. None of them are "good" for her.

Hugo Schwyzer introduced a concept, which has become viral to some extent, and should be spread far and wide.

A dangerous line I sometimes use: “The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm”. It’s dangerous because it’s shocking, and of course, it’s dangerous because it twists the purely legal meaning of the term “rape.” But from the standpoint of one who cares desperately about the well-being of young people, my goal in offering workshops like these is not merely to prevent sexual assault that meets the legal standard of a criminal act. My goal is to prevent that, of course, but to also offer shy and uncertain young people tools to prevent them from having bad sex characterized by obligation, confusion, and detached resignation. I always argue that anything short of an authentic, honest, uncoerced, aroused and sober “Hell, yes!” is, in the end, just a “no” in another form.

This is my advice to men who may be still be confused. No matter how homely, or stupid, or assholeish, or loserish you are, there is a gal out there who will genuinely want to fuck you. (Lid for every pot, and all that.) She will not have to be persuaded, begged, convinced, coerced or plied with alcohol. Look for her. And until you find her, keep it in your pants.

Addendum: The thread in question continues and worsens, with a pronouncement from thereisnospoon that... well..

Seems to me, spoon.... (4.50 / 2)

Women who are drunk or stoned should be off limits then...yes?

I mean, if he doesn't want to take the chance of a "post-facto" rape charge, yes?

Simple.

---

by: Cheryl @ Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 19:13:33 PM EDT

---

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

right--that makes great sense (1.00 / 1)

Hey guys--never have sex with drunk women--ever! You might get lucky, but they could also accuse you of rape for no other reason than that they were drunk. Oh, and just avoid bars altogether--nobody picks people up at bars, because that would be rape.

Hey women--get drunk! You either bed the guy and like it--or if you don't like it, you can accuse him of rape afterwards! Or both! Nothing to lose!

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds to tell decent men to avoid drunk women for fear that they may rape them inadvertently?

---

by: thereisnospoon @ Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 19:18:26 PM EDT

So the idea that a man should ever have to face adverse consequences for bedding a drunk woman is ridiculous. This seems like something of a double standard, considering the resurrected comment of his that touched off this firestorm, all those months ago. (Sadly I have no link to this as it was troll rated out of existence on DKos, resurrected, deleted from MLW and the cache, from which I once resurrected it, is now gone as well.)

actually, i'm saying that (0+ / 5-)

the "victim" doesn't even know if she was victimized here.
She was too fricking drunk--if the eyewitnesses are correct--to even remember.

She left smiling, she arrived battered, and people are REALLY quick here to scream "rape" and blame these "horrible" men.

And quick to lambaste the WSJ writer for suggesting that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if a woman does not want to get taken advantage of, that MAYBE she shouldn't get passed out drunk at a frat party.

And that's insane.

What is the Nexus?

by thereisnospoon on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 02:21:10 PM PDT

So, if a woman gets passed out drunk and leaves her body unprotected, it's "insane" to think that she doesn't bear some responsibility for consequences. But if a man has sex with a drunk woman, the idea that he should face consequences is "ridiculous." Wow.

Blogging Burma

A day of blogging for Burma has been declared for Oct 4th.

In the meanwhile, if you're having trouble putting the ongoing events in Burma (Myanmar) in context, there's an excellent overview from Rippen Kitten on Pff. A lot of background on what led up to this horrible slaughter and persecution of the country's Buddhist monks.

About 4,000 monks have been rounded up in the past week as the military government has tried to stamp out pro-democracy protests.

They are being held at a disused race course and a technical college.

Sources from a government-sponsored militia said they would soon be moved away from Rangoon.

The monks have been disrobed and shackled, the sources told BBC radio's Burmese service. There are reports that the monks are refusing to eat.

The country has seen almost two weeks of sustained popular unrest, in the most serious challenge to the military leadership for more than two decades.

Dharma Queen

Buy at AllPosters.com

I have taken the rather unusual step of deleting a site from my blogroll. I think that merits some explanation. A while ago I started to blog about the issues that were emerging on the very new community blog, Docudharma, but got too busy with more pressing matters to finish the post. This is as far as I got:

Not a week into its very successful launch, the new community blog Docudharma is well into its first major Docudrama. So young in blog years to already be deep in a multi-diary meta war. Not that surprising when one considers that one of the new blog's frontpager/administrators is none other than Armando. It seems someone dared to suggest that name-calling is less than constructive and suggested that fellow bloggers try to be civil. The reaction from Armando came swift and sure, in a diary designed to nip that civility thing in the bud.

The problem with this is that the folks who write this type of comment will wield "civility" like a club in an attempt to stifle debate. I know it. I lived it.

Yes, it's true. Armando is a battle-scarred warrior for the right to hurl vile epithets, and his temper finally cost him his comfy orange cushion, as detailed here.

A mere 382 comments later, DavidByron, of all people, completely nails Armando's central point.

Armando knows the correct club to use is to be a moderator and threaten to ban people.

Because that, indeed, is the central thrust of his tirade.

You;d be surprised (4.00 / 3)

how uncivil these civility discussions become.

I think discussing and urging "civility" should be a banning offense here.

I am only half kidding.

---

by: Armando

Strangely, Armando was right. The civility lecturing on that site has gotten downright weird, but the lectures are coming from the blog administrators; especially one ek hornbeck. With a hat-tip to catnip, hornbeck recently posted as a guideline for Docudharma behavior, the eightfold path of Buddhism.

The Four Noble Truths-

• Life means suffering.
• The cause of suffering is desire.
• There is a way to stop suffering.
• The Eight Fold Way.

The Eight Fold Way-

• Right View
• Right Intention
• Right Speech
• Right Action
• Right Livelihood
• Right Effort
• Right Mindfulness
• Right Concentration

And hornbeck means business. As further down in "meditations on the cause of suffering" he explains that infractions will result in suspensions and banning. Here's a snippet:

They are committed to ethical conduct, of which one part is Right Speech. Let's review the elements-

• Abstention from false speech that deliberately lies and deceives.
• Abstention from slanderous speech and the malicious use of words against others.
• Abstention from harsh words that offend or hurt others.
• Abstention from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth.

Well, still working on that last one myself, unless you define it as gossip which some scholars do.

Another part of ethical conduct is Right Action- kindness and compassion, honesty, respecting the belongings of others, and keeping sexual relationships harmless to others.

If you don't want to be ethical- leave.

If you don't want to be here- leave.

We're here to work on the last 4 parts of The Way.

If you are developing new bad habits. If you are not abandoning old bad habits. If you are not developing new good habits or maintaining and perfecting the same-

Leave.

Mental energy is the force behind right effort. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Without effort nothing can be achieved.

If you're not going to make an effort I'll not waste any of mine on you.

If I see you misbehaving I'll suspend you. If a Contributing Editor complains about you in the Admin Forum I'll suspend you.

First, no questions asked.

This is a temporary suspension. The intention is to keep you from doing any more damage to yourself or others. You will not be able to post (comments or essays) or rate.

A notification will be put up in the Admin Forum and as many Admins and Contributing Editors as care to contribute will discuss your case and debate the appropriate punishment. This process may take 24 hours.

Most punishments will take the form of suspensions, either 2 days or 1 week. You will not be able to post (comments or essays) or rate. You may receive multiple suspensions and they may be greater or lesser depending on severity and frequency of the offense. All Administrative Punishments will be reviewed by budhy.

Sounds like hornbeck is well on his way to becoming an illumed being. He's got it down, except for that idle chatter thing. Yeah, that one's hard. Further down the thread he demonstrates some of his perfected "right speech." I'll just post a handful for purposes of contemplation:

Pity Me. (3.00 / 3)

I don't pity you at all. You're a liar.

The Buddha would not save you if he could. Your path is your path and your path is the path of a known liar.

---

by: ek hornbeck @ Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:06:36

**********

Why do you demand a link from me? (4.00 / 1)

You've lied in this thread.

AND you've claimed your Whiny Ass Titty Baby self is a tough as nails war correspondent who went to Oxford AND Cambridge.

Or some unproven crap like that.

Pity me.

I have no pity for you- loser.

---

by: ek hornbeck @ Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:48:39

"Whiny Ass Titty Baby," is one of hornbeck's favorite phrases, though sometimes he renders it in the simpler version WATB. (Note to self: Must check to see if that sterling phrase is from the Lotus Sutra). But, his most impressive example of "right speech" was imparted to one Sabrina an Pff:

Coward am I? (79.33 / 15)

Heh. Here I am. I like it Swedish style, strapped together at the wrist and just the one knife, but I'll gut you any way you want.

by ek hornbeck @ Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:31:34 AM CDT

It seems that some took offense at hornbeck's words and, apparently, did not think they exemplified "right speech" at all. In fact, it has been suggested that they constituted a threat of violence, which is illegal. Hmmmm....

This is not the first time the administrators of Docudharma have been accused of hypocrisy. There've been other incidents, like the way Buddydharma, site proprietor, promises in the site FAQ:

One thing we do NOT do here is pre-emptively ban. You will be warned, in public if you are getting close to being banned. You have the right to argue that, you have a right to appeal it.

But, then, pre-emptively banned people. This thread is really worth a read. It's a study in poor leadership. Peeder sums it up quite well, in his criticism of Buhdydharma.

Gotta say (5.18 / 17)

This public execution of Miss Devore, complete with "do you have anything to say before we turn the switch?", is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen online. I mean, where have we gotten to? It's as if new technology creates a regression in civilization. But basically it's just about people having no experience with power over others.

by peeder @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 00:51:36 AM PDT

The humor value alone, in that thread, when Buhdydharma explains his own spiritual guidelines makes it well worth picking through. Unlike hornbeck, he's not, in fact, a Buddhist. He studies "the tao." Oh, but he doesn't study "the texts." He's apparently also missed, in his studies, that simply no one spells it with a t, any more. It's Daoism.

But being a poseur is not reason enough for me to de-link Buhdy's site. It's funny as hell, but it's not cause for such a drastic step. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

Look, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, looking to find some sort of utopia in the blogosphere. Every site owner does things I disagree with; things I would do differently were it my site. It needn't be terminal. But Buhdy's defense of his actions, which amounts to his repeated protestation that he is "not perfect," isn't gonna cut it for me.

I don't know. The site is young, and Buhdy is new to his leadership role. Perhaps both will mature and Docudharma will become a functional blogging instrument. If that happens, I will gladly re-link.

In the meanwhile, it's pretty hard to defend having site administrators -- people who can see every member's IP address -- like that pit viper Armando and someone who talks about gutting a woman in some archaic Swedish duel. Scribe summed it up well for me, in this exchange:

the fact that (5.18 / 11)

you are being totally dismissive and insulting to everyone here who objected to eks violent comment, and you are defending him every way you possibly can, which clearly means you have no problem with that kind of communication coming from one of your own admins. When I put that together with how I see you already stepping up to protect Armandos right to be assholish whenever he wants, while not allowing anyone to attack him, I see a good ol boys club in action already, bud. Whether you intended this or not,this is sure how it looks to me, for one.

by scribe @ Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 15:51:35 PM PDT

**********

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise you may edit the comment further and re-Preview, or Cancel it below.

You must enter a subject for your comment

After a whole ten days. (1.75 / 4)

Yeah THATS fair. wow And if I was dismissive I wouldn't come here at all. The standards of perfection are a bit strict don't ya think?

by buhdydharma @ Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 17:09:05 PM PDT

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're not perfect. But, dude, you're not even tryin.'

From the Irony Files

I have been unable to muster much interest in the battle between Bill O'Reilly and the Daily Kos. O'Reilly's penchant for distortion and slander has become so old hat, that most of the time I can muster neither outrage nor the belly laugh most of it deserves. This, however, is a riot. One of my dear friends from My Left Wing, dhonig, is the latest to be defamed by Bill-O and the underlying premise turns reality squarely on its head. The falafel lover (and, yes, that's a double-entendre) has accused dhonig of, hold on to your hat, anti-Semitism.

Let me back up and explain why that is hilarious, aside from the fact that dhonig is Jewish. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone more sensitive to the subteties of anti-Semitism than dhonig. I personally have accused him of seeing it where it just does not exist. In fact, I've told him that he begins to sound like this to me:



I can't think of a worse kossack to quote in trying to prove your case, as O'Reilly is, that anti-Semitism is rampant on Daily Kos. Here is dhonig explaining how Bill-O took a segment out of his diary and twisted it completely out of context:

Ever since the 2006 Lebanon war, anti-Semitism became a significant topic, particularly in the I/P debates. People on one side of the debate cried "anti-Semitism," and people on the other side (in my personal opinion far more) inserted prophylactic demands "don't call me an anti-Semite but ...." It got so heated that I decided to write a diary, ultimately several of them, to distinguish between criticism of Israel, even criticism with which I vehemently disagreed, and actual anti-Semitism. This particular diary was a response to claims that people were too quick to make the anti-Semitism accusation, and that there really wasn't any on Daily Kos. Rather, the theory went, there was just legitimate criticism of Israel, and Israel's supporters were trying to shut it down with false accusations.
Okay, let's go straight to the money quote, shall we?

If Jews love the US so much- how come their #'s in the US military are dismal? Instead of selling ones soul to be diamond brokers, investment bankers

Did I write that? Nope. Actually, that was one of the hateful quotes I was criticizing. It is, of course, also worth noting that it was troll-rating into oblivion, 0 to 15.

The punchline is that dhonig is an attorney and seriously considering a law suit. I think he should sue. As noted by dhoning here, you can make your own opinion on that known here.

Not surprisingly Keith Olbermann has picked up on the controversy. Enjoy:

Cult Purge Announced at Daily Kos

I have, on more than one occasion, compared Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos with that other power-mad autocrat George W. Bush. Some may quibble with that analysis, but I think it gets a little harder when Markos apes the President so nakedly. Without a trace of irony, Markos has pronounced -- and I'm not making this up -- that members of Daily Kos are "With us or against us."

There has lately been an alarming rise in diaries and comments that seek to impugn (without evidence) the motives of those they disagree with on various issues.

Yes, there's the impeachment stuff, but this nasty rhetoric is also rampant in the primary war diaries.

This points to a serious breakdown not just on civility, but in the ability of people to properly debate various issues. As such, it presents a serious threat to the integrity of this site.

I much prefer it when the community moderates itself, and for the most part it does a good job of this. The libertarian in me prefers it that way. But sometimes, self-moderation isn't enough. I'll act swiftly and mercilessly when I'm pushed into defending the effectiveness of this site. And at this moment, my patience is wearing thin.

It goes on like that for a few more paragraphs; veiled threats of banishment for vaguely defined transgressions. I think it's safe to assume many kossacks will be branded unmutual in the coming days and weeks. And with over 1200 comments from the hallelujah chorus, I think it's safe to say Markos will be able to count on that cyber torch and pitch fork wielding mob to do a lot of the dirty work.

Huzzah for the Blog Keeper!(53+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Kestrel, pb, StevenJoseph, DFWmom, RubDMC, elveta, sarahnity, als10, L0kI, celticshel, dejavu, aggressiveprogressive, lcrp, JohnGor0, randallt, eztempo, murrayewv, Thirsty, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, 3goldens, el dorado gal, Elise, deepfish, LithiumCola, pmob5977, ohcanada, MadGeorgiaDem, buddabelly, BachFan, Lashe, SaraPMcC, JVolvo, Dauphin, ER Doc, edgery, MBNYC, droogie6655321, va dare, RantNRaven, FrankieB, GoldnI, godislove, Jimdotz, Nordic Kossor, lizpolaris, Pink Lady, dragoneyes, smartdemmg, TokenLiberal, NogodsnomastersMary, mommaK, Tropical Depression

(It's fun talking like this.)

by Bush Bites on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:39:26 AM PDT

You can't make this shit up, folks!

It's a predictable pattern in organized groups as they devolve into insular cults. Leaders always think, if I can just get rid of this undesirable personality, the dynamics will right themselves. Then another. Then another. For a while it all seems harmonious again, until the next personality conflict arises, or the next uncomfortable discussion occurs, or someone has the temerity to question the leadership. So you get rid of more troublemakers and things seem to smooth over for a little while, until another fight breaks out; until the atmosphere is more toxic than it ever was... Before you know it, you're chasing ants with flame throwers in a vain and endless attempt to purge the group of those nasty, negative influences that seem to creep in from every nook and cranny. Or you could just buy a mirror.

Buy at AllPosters.com

Same as the Old Bosses

Just finishing the thought from the freshly minted Mother Jones article, "Meet the New Bosses." Subtitle: "After crashing the gate of the political establishment, bloggers are looking more like the next gatekeepers." Bingo!

Last June, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, former soldier, one-time Reagan Republican, and proprietor of the wildly successful liberal blog Daily Kos, sent an email to an invitation-only listserv known as Townhouse. Consisting of some 300 liberal bloggers, journalists, activists, and consultants, the list was an outgrowth of weekly strategy sessions held at a D.C. bar—a forum for brainstorming on issues and tactics, and a means of creating a "unified message," as Moulitsas later put it. Its members were bound by one main rule: Nothing from the list was to be quoted or distributed, which, this being politics, meant that a leak was bound to happen.

In the message that would end up putting Townhouse, briefly, on the outside world's radar, Moulitsas asked list members to "ignore" a blog item by the New York Times' Chris Suellentrop that revealed that Jerome Armstrong—founder of the popular liberal blog MyDD and a close friend and business associate of Moulitsas—had once been implicated in a stock-touting scheme. Suellentrop noted parallels between stock-hyping and bloggers' touting of candidates such as Howard Dean, who had hired both Armstrong and Moulitsas as consultants during his 2004 presidential campaign. Moulitsas, who had recently coauthored the book Crashing the Gate with Armstrong, told Townhouse members that these revelations were "a nonstory." "So far," he wrote, "this story isn't making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn't do anything to help make that happen." He urged participants to "starve it of oxygen."

When The New Republic's Jason Zengerle blogged about the Townhouse email, "The Kos" urged readers to cancel their subscriptions, writing, "It is now beyond clear that the dying New Republic is mortally wounded and cornered, desperate for relevance. It has lost half its circulation since the blogs arrived on the scene and they no longer (thank heavens!) have a monopoly on progressive punditry. We have hit their bottom line, we are hitting their patron saint hard (Joe Lieberman) and this is how they respond. By going after the entire movement." Many of Moulitsas' followers—Kossacks, they call themselves—then filled Zengerle's inbox with all manner of invective.

The irony is this: Moulitsas' reaction echoes the very control-the-message philosophy the blogosphere once rose up to fight... [emphasis mine]

Lots more good stuff in the Mother Jones piece, including some sparkling insight from my girl Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing. (Full disclosure: I am a front-page writer and editor for that site. I wouldn't want to be accused of undisclosed bias. That would surely be ironic, no?)

O'Connor speaks like she writes, in stream-of-consciousness bursts, and she told me she had begun to feel there was a "schism" in the blogosphere. "I think that certain bloggers, the big ones, think politics is sexy," she said. "They want in, and they're getting in. They'll do anything to get in, almost. They want a seat at the table. They want to be in the inner circle of the Democratic Party." A member of Townhouse, she was at first reluctant to talk about the list but changed her mind midway through our conversation, predicting that her comments would get her banished. "It's fucking Skull and Bones, man," she said. "The very secretive, behind-closed-doors nature of it is anathema to everything that blogging is supposed to be about: accountability. We are supposed to be showing the way, not skulking around behind closed doors, coming up with strategies. Those are the people who we're trying to fight. I know about 'the real world' and all that shit. But we're the idealists, aren't we?"

The article concludes with a list of quotes about the blogosphere. This one cracked me up:

micah sifry
It's true that Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas are very influential, but they are constantly held accountable by their audience. If Markos makes a mistake, right there in the blog comments people are bashing him. He can't stray that far from accountability, the way that editors of the old gatekeeping institutions—whether it was the New York Times or The Nation—were inherently insulated. It's no coincidence that you see a flowering of new voices and people earning their status on merit rather than going to the right college.

It would appear that Mr. Sifry is oblivious to just how many kossacks have been banished to cyberia.

I would probably have much more to say on this insightful bit of journalism, if I hadn't been saying it, and saying it, and saying it, until I'm tired of fucking saying it.

Markos Issues Non-Apology Apology

But first let me quote Booman's post from yesterday, addressing the urgent need for Markos to make an apology.

And here is my conclusion. Markos has pissed off so many people, and pissed them off so much, that there is no more benefit of the doubt left for him. I seriously doubt that these reactions would be anywhere near as strong if the dismissive statements had been made by any other blogger on the left.

My inclination was to assume he had no idea that Kathy Sierra experienced significantly more trauma than mere run of the mill death threats. I assumed that he was tired, uninformed, and annoyed with yet another call for blogger ethics. I assumed that he did the equivalent of blogging while drunk. I did not assume that he was picking on her because she was a woman. I did not assume that he was dismissing what really happened to her because it did not appear that he knew what really happened to her. But there are two things that are more important than the possibility that he was tired and his post was unintentionally assholeish.

First, he hasn't apologized or clarified his position. I know he is busy with his children and his wife, but he is getting a lot of criticism and he surely knows that people (including some of his front-pagers) are very upset about what he wrote. His continued silence will eventually force me to abandon any benefit of the doubt I was willing to grant him.

Somehow, I don't think anything less than a full-throated, I acknowledge the grievousness of my omission and ignorance, type of apology will really quell the outrage Booman is referring to. I don't think this will cut it.

I don't disagree with anything Lindsey wrote. I disagreed with using a bloggers threats as an excuse to foist upon us all a "Blogger Code of Conduct".

That's what I was saying. 1) There are assholes that will 2) email stupid shit to any public figure (which includes bloggers, but 3) that won't be stopped by any blogger code of conduct.

You see, stupid asshole psycho threatening emailers don't care about codes of conduct. That's all.

Leave us say it's not going to cut for me. I can't help but notice, and not for the first time, that Markos and Bush have way too much in common. Mostly it's the autocratic, dictatorial thing. But, in this case, I refer to his total inability to admit mistakes; glaring, odious, epically poorly judged, mistakes.

Terrance has an interesting take on this that I respect, even though I completely disagree.

First, the “code of conduct” he refers to isn’t being “foisted” on anyone. It’s entirely voluntary. At last count, there are 76.4 million blogs out there. There’s little chance of anything being successfully “foisted” on anyone, let alone being enforced. (By what authority?) Kos, and any other blogger can simply ignore it. (And Kos might have done well to do so in the first place.)

Second, nobody’s said that “stupid assholes” are going to stop making threats because of a code of conduct.

Assholes tend not to follow any code of conduct, and deeply resent any suggestion or expectation that they should. They tend to reject any notion responsibility to or for anyone but themselves.

The recommended code of conduct here doesn’t apply to the assholes making the threats. It applies to those of us who (a) operate blogs and (b) chose to follow the suggested guidelines. . . .

In all fairness, I can understand why this might be cause for concern for a blogger of Kos’ status. After all, how many comments does his site get on any given day, counting front page posts and member diaries? Far too many for Kos to keep up with, and probably too many even for his “trusted users” or others with administrative capabilities to keep up with. The idea of taking responsibility for comments on a blog that size, given the possibility that some like the ones Kathy received might escape notice and actually result in someone getting hurt or killed would be enough to keep anyone up at night.

So why do I disagree with this? For starters, as I said, I actually agree with Markos that the Code of Conduct is wrong-headed. It's a very slippery slope to start drafting apologia for censorship of content we don't like. Obviously death threats -- which are illegal -- should be deleted, as should people's addresses and phone numbers, obvious libel, etc. My problem with this idea is that it justifies the censoring of ideas and personalities. As I've said many times, no one has a first amendment right to publish anything on another person's blog, but I have always aimed to adhere to the spirit, if not the letter of the law. I believe in a marketplace of ideas and that includes protecting the right of others to say bonehead shit. That said, I think the blog administrator that allowed pics of Kathy Sierra with a noose around her neck to remain is an idiot. Death threats! Illegal! Not protected! Do we not know this?

But the major reason I disagree with Terrance, in this instance, is that Markos's problem has never been a laxity in enforcing speech restrictions on his site.

As caliberal said the other day:

I left dailykos because of the misogynistic and sexist statements made to women, I also left because the man in charge never said one word about it, he banned those with conspiracy theories but didn't deem it a bannable offense to say hateful, vitriolic things to women.

No, thought policing has never been in short supply on Daily Kos. It's just that misogynistic vitriol is not one of the numerous thought crimes for which a kossack may be banished to cyberia.

If Markos's contempt for all things feminist wasn't apparent when he referred to a solid chunk of his membership as the "sanctimonious women's studies set," his utter inability to comprehend and articulate why a woman getting graphic rape/mutilation/murder threats is hideously serious, should really clear up any remaining misconceptions.

But there are those who are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not surprisingly one is his former enforcer, the Cuban Heel. And skippy explains it all to you:

we think big tent armando needs to attend a few 12 step meetings learn the meaning of the word enabler. because then he might not be so quick to defend markos as "merely clueless" rather than outright "misogynistic.". . .

however, in this case, he is making the same mistake that most humans with penises between their legs make in their approach to active misogyny, and that is that, as eldridge cleaver said about rascism, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

sorry, bta, but being clueless about misogyny, especially in the 21st century america, is not a valid, or even believable, excuse. to say, "hey, the guy wasn't the one who punched the broad in the face, he was just watching," is not a defense that will hold up under scrutiny.

armando would have us believe that markos does not hate women. replace the concept of women with the concept of black people in that world view, and you get the old canard, "some of my best friends are negros."

just as there is such a thing as lying by omission, there is such a thing as bigoty by inaction. and in something as horrific as a woman getting photoshop-quality graphic death and rape threats anonymously, such firmly-stated inaction can be legitimately viewed by some (read: human beings with vaginas) as beyond the pale.

you don't have to lynch negros to be a racist, you just have to sit by as institutionalized racism destroys entire communities.

and you don't have to rape to be a misogynist, you can just as easily poo-poo someone's legitimate fears of rape.

Stay Tuned

As per Booman something big is percolating in the blogosphere. He dropped this little tidbit in a thread on the aformentioned Markos/Kathy Sierra maelstrom. Frontpager Steven D called on A-list bloggers to take a stand on Markos's stunning tone-deafness on the abuse Kathy Sierra endured. According to Booman, MyDD has enough trouble brewing. Hmmm....

Re: Open Letter to A-List Bloggers Not Named Marko (none / 0)

that whole scene is about to blow...they don't need this scandal.

by BooMan on Sun Apr 15th, 2007 at 02:27:54 AM EST

Re: Open Letter to A-List Bloggers Not Named Marko (none / 0) Well, the only reason MyDD might face problems is if the Edwards/Obama flame wars continue to heat up over there. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you may be referencing... by PsiFighter37 on Sun Apr 15th, 2007 at 02:31:06 AM EST

Re: Open Letter (none / 0) Stay tuned. by BooMan on Sun Apr 15th, 2007 at 02:34:08 AM EST

Maybe related. Maybe not. Certainly related in the broader sense, Maryscott dropped some hints the other day about an interview with Mother Jones.

The interview: funny, I hadn't expected such an in-depth conversation. Usually when I'm asked for "telephone interviews," the conversations last less than an hour, and I'm rarely quoted in the resulting pieces. An exception is a long-awaited/delayed piece by Alex Koppelman (that link is to a brief piece he wrote about She Whose Name I Dare Mention All I Wish, But Do Not Wish) for Salon.com. He had planned its publishing in early March, but when I emailed asking if I'd missed it, he responded (raw-thah mysteriously, I thought) that Salon was still "waiting for something to happen." I decided not to ask what that something is, since A) he's probably constrained from telling me anyway and B) I am too overwhelmed by real life to care much, to be perfectly blunt.

Aaaaanyway. GOD, I can go on. Where was I? Oh. Mother Jones. Telephone interview. Yeah. I'm not gonna blow the guy's story; suffice to say we covered a wide-range of topics, mostly about blogging. He'd read my Something Is Rotten in Blogmark from last summer and it spoke to a lot of what he is writing about. So, there. I blew it anyway. I expect a VERY interesting article, to put it mildly. And if he quotes me heavily enough, I may just find myself, for once and all, tossed out of Blogtopia (y! sctp!) and renamed Princess of Fucking Darkness by the Powers That Be.

Something IS rotten in Blogmark. A lot of us know it and have been writing about it for some time. Could it be that a lot more people are about to find out just how rotten it is?

Markos Said WHAT?!!

I've been taking it very easy the last couple of days trying to kick this cold once and for all. Imagine my horror upon awakening from my four hour nap this afternoon, to read on My Left Wing that Markos has weighed in from the orange pulpit on the Kathy Sierra firestorm, and pronounced it much ado about nothing.

I'm in and out of commission, so I hadn't heard of this so-called "death threat" thing. So I looked it up.

Prominent blogger Kathy Sierra has called on the blogosphere to combat the culture of abuse online.

It follows a series of death threats which have forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog.

Ms Sierra described on her blog how she had been subject to a campaign of threats, including a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose.

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".

I don't know what's worse. Markos's ignorance about women's issues, his laziness, or his pseudo-British punctuation. He goes on to compare the campaign of hate waged against Sierra with an ambi-directional rant against liberals he received... and strangely what sounds like some threats he kinda shoulda reported because they were leveled at his children.

So according to Markos, the answer for women like Sierra who receive death and rape threats is, hey, toughen up. Don't be so thin-skinned.

Believe it or not, I agree with Markos's broader point. I think the Code of Conduct for bloggers is a poor if well-intended idea. I honestly think it trivializes what happened to Sierra to cast it as a case of bad manners. No one thinks writing death threats along the lines of "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob," publishing her home address, and photoshopping pictures of her with a noose around her neck, are protected speech. They're actually a form of assault and that's why the authorities are involved.

The conversation that needs to happen on the web is not about how we can be more civil and restrained in our verbiage. I've met some very subtle, articulate misogynists in my life. As in most cases where free speech is involved, I think the answer is more dialog, rather than restricting the parameters of debate. The discussion we need to have is about why it is that there is no corner of the world where women can go and not be reduced to our body parts, our sexual exploitability, and our physical vulnerability.

It's too bad Markos drove off so much of the "sanctimonious women's studies set" from his site. Because it looks like it's going to be up to those of us who have read Steinem, Atwood, Bunch, et al., to explain why the terror campaign endured by Kathy Sierra strikes such a delicate nerve. It comes down to fear. Not irrational fear. Fear of the kind Gavin DeBecker endorses women to heed in his book "The Gift of Fear." It's the ever present fear of predators. It is exactly that fear that Sierra's verbal attackers were counting on. Whether or not there is any chance of this escalating to a physical confrontation -- and that is a legitimate concern -- they know full well that a good way to silence a woman is to make her afraid to leave her house. And that is exactly what happened. Not because she's too thin-skinned, but because she came face to face with every woman's worst nightmare.

A woman's worst nightmare? That's pretty easy. Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them." When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed."

I you think, gentle reader, that this famous anecdote is not indicative a greater social phenomenon, read the article I quoted. That would be a good start. Then read Chris Clarke's fantastic response to Kos. Says Clarke:

If no woman in your life has ever talked to you about how she lives her life with an undercurrent of fear of men, consider the possibility that it may be because she sees you as one of those men she cannot really trust.

In closing, I think The Fat Lady Sings put it best on My Left Wing:

Every man walking down the street towards you is a possible attacker - and you size him up as such. What is he capable of? How can I escape? Can I use my purse as a weapon? It's automatic - something you just do if you're female. Why do you think every woman goes out to her car carrying her keys wrapped through her fingers as a weapon? To put some mans eye out should he attack. And before some of you pooh-pooh this as unnecessary or extreme - try asking the women in your life what they think. You will find they walk through life in permanent paramilitary mode. We always have to be prepared; and those of us who are survivors of rape look upon men with a more jaundiced eye than most. So Markos should shut the fuck up about Kathy Sierra. He has no idea what she's going through - none at all.

The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Blogosphere

"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."
-- Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin

Well, this period of unbridled ugliness in the blogosphere continues with no relief in sight. I have now seen behavior I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams; repeated attacks on Maryscott O'Connor for her reaction to BeagleandTabby's publicly posted suicide note. Never mind that her quick action and community outreach resulted in his rescue by police. Never mind that she was in shock and grief upon learning from his delayed posting that her friend was probably already gone. Nope. Whatever she did... not good enough.

So the armchair quarterbacks at Daily Kos, where she posted his, thankfully premature, memoriam, attacked her for being too quick to assume him dead, for making his private life public, on and on and on... Don't bother to look for that diary. It was removed so the vicious comments would not be an assault on BeagleandTabby's senses when he returns. The sniping has been significant enough that Steven D. felt it necessary to publicly defend her here and here.

Worse still, someone ironically nicknamed cronesense, had the audacity to accuse Maryscott of inventing this incident of whole cloth to get attention, based on nothing but some fucked up time stamps. Time stamps. Work on a computer much? Jesus Christ.

You know when I first started reading liberal blogs and message boards, I was admittedly stunned at some of the behavior; the censorship of ideas, autocratic management styles, abusiveness, aggressive thought policing, etc., etc., etc. Several times I showed my husband threads that had left me feeling gobsmacked for one reason or another. He would blink a few times in astonishment and say, "These are liberal sites?" But ultimately I came to the conclusion that, well, people are people wherever you go. A good bit of the drama in the left wing blogosphere owes to the foibles of human nature and is as good an argument for our complex system of checks and balances as anything. We are a nation of laws, not men, for good reason.

Readers of this site are, by now, aware that I write almost as much about the internal dynamics of the blogosphere as the political arena. The metaphors are there. I have to use them. Sure Ann Coulter's narcissism and inability to admit her flawed logic is fascinating, but so is Armando's. Sure Bush's tyrannical style and simple-mindedness is disturbing, but so is Kos's. I could go on, but I already have at length.

But what I've seen over the last several days -- and my reading has necessarily only skimmed the surface -- defies any categorization I can think of. Mind-blowingly nasty stuff.

And finally I must publicly apologize -- and I am doing this through gritted teeth -- to the Blogging Curmudgeon. He is a free agent and he is entitled to go off half-cocked if he wants. It has nothing to do with me. Or shouldn't. I was wrong to blame him, even in part, for the dust up with Marisacat. The fault was hers and hers alone. Not because she conflated the two of us -- such confusion is inevitable -- but because when she was apprised of the truth she continued her vain assault on my character. I find it rather telling that she continues to disparage me for not paying her proper homage by linking to pages in her blog I did not have enough interest in to read, in the first place. (I trust my readers to follow further links and use the google according to their own interest level.) Yet she did not see fit to READ the blog she was defaming. A quick glance at the prominently placed bio would have informed her that the Blogging Curmudgeon had left the building. Pot calling the kettle what now? Blog etiquette, indeed.

Courage-Teacher

From the previous entry.

DavidByron said...

When I read this comment this morning I thought to myself that you'd only need one cleansing and it was waiting for you at MLW.

Yeah that puts things in perspective.

You're not wrong, DB. Cleansing ritual. Sock to the gut. Whatever works?

For those who do not know it, a regular of My Left Wing, and Maryscott's friend, BeagleandTabby, attempted suicide this morning. Maryscott found a suicide note posted as a diary on MLW. Thanks in part to her quick action, the police were able to get to him in time, and he is now in the hospital.

This has been a sad day and a rather profound climax to an ugly period in the blogosphere.

My thoughts and prayers go out to BeagleandTabby. And to his friends and family.

I don't know what prompted me to look for this video this morning, but now it feels appropriate, somehow. I think of Joni Mitchell, as Ginsburg did of Whitman, as my "courage-teacher." This is in my opinion a breathtaking cover of one of the greatest songs ever written.

Hell Is Other People

Buy at AllPosters.com

I only just got around to reading through Scribe's excellent post on the troubled dynamics of the blogosphere. I don't know that I accept all of her conclusions but, still, very insightful. If this bit doesn't sum up what's been rippling through the ether the last several days, I don't know what does.

Ok. So one way or another, we find ourselves in these groups that feel and seem to be falling apart at the freaking seams. all around our ears. Some of us panic, not wanting to lose whatever measure of belonging we had found..and attack the hell out of any visible outsiders that might be "causing" this fracturing. Or we may turn on each other. Or we may decide to walk away altogether. All of these are understandable human behaviors given wherever we each are at in our own lives.

But sometimes, this dynamic seems to escalate and takes on a life of it's own. It begins to spread, like a virus, from place to place. Once it gets inside of us, we can end up carry it like any contagious viri, wherever else we go outside our own "group"..and infect others along the way. Until it can reach an epidemic stage.

I didn't delve too deeply into this latest multi-site dust-up. In part because I have been heavily involved in some other writing projects. In part because the little bit I looked at turned my stomach in a way that I haven't experienced in this arena too often... if ever. Still, I made the mistake of sticking in a toe and got sucked inexorably into depths of goo. Oh well. Live and learn.

I may need to take a little break. I can't say right now whether it will be hours, days, or weeks. It depends on just how many ceremonial cleansing baths it takes for me to feel clean again.