Judging Friends and Foes Over the Intertubes and Innernets

repsac3: Folks online are only as real...

repsac3: Fortunately, there is a record...

repsac3: ...the real meat--the REAL truth...

repsac3: To whatever extent...

Advice from others has it's place, but firsthand experience and your own good sense is worth far more. Don't spend a whole lot of time listening to some third party characterize and interpret what a person said and did through the lens of their own biases and beliefs--especially when you can see exactly what that person said and did, in full context, all on your own.

For good and for ill, anyone whose been online for awhile has created a searchable record that speaks to who they are. The truth is out there. Use it, and judge for yourself...

In Reply: I'm Sorry... WHO Broke the Agreement?!?

In reply to this comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Because really important news always involves bikinis.":

I promised to make no mention of him nor link to him, and I did neither. He’s bound by the same agreement, but has continually violated it over the past few months, a fact about which I really don’t care, which is why I haven’t brought it up.

(However, I’m glad he’s posting my phone number on the Internet, though, as that’s a very polite thing to do.)
---

I was gonna say... T'wasn't you who broke the ceasefire agreement... Teh Donalde's mentioned you and that guy who isn't TinTin several times recently, [on edit: SEK, only once, on Friday, May 18, 2012; it was the other guy Dr. Douglas mentioned several times.] hoping to get in on the whole "I'm a victim" thing brought on by the RW "Kimberlin" jihad of late. (He wants so very badly to be taken seriously by his fellow Wingnuts that he's willing to do whatever it takes... Sadly for him, several folks on the right saw through the mask and called him out for his own anti-free speech / Kimberlin-like behaviors...)

Besides... I have screencaps... God is watching...
---

Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm

In Reply: Grand Juries "Routine" in Homicide Cases

Two comments (an hour or so apart) in reply to Allergic to Bull: Texans Should Be Angry At Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn For Wasting a Citizen’s and Grand Jury’s Time...
---

Reading a bunch of the news stories about the case, I kinda get the feeling that sending the case to a grand jury was just standard procedure. I can't find anyone--not even those who would ostensibly be on the "prosecution" side of this case (law enforcement, the district attorney, ...) who believed the father deserved to be charged or prosecuted. The local news stories and statements by all concerned treat it's going to the grand jury as unremarkable, and just the next (last) step in the process to clear the father of any legal wrongdoing...

While I'm with you on it being a waste of money--and certainly burdensome on the father if he was obligated to pay for a lawyer for this (not to mention other "potential defendants" against whom no one in the law enforcement / legal community believes charges should be filed)--I'm not sure this is a moral or legal injustice, or that the district attorney is personally or professionally at fault, at least based on the way most of the news stories and statements by those involved and those familiar read...

(I submitted comments to a few local news stories asking for clarification on this... I'll comment here again, if I see anything that speaks to the issue one way or the other...)
---
Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 21, 2012 10:20 AM

~~~

Got a reply to my query from a reporter in TX: "in Texas, every case that is ruled a "homicide" -- death by other than natural causes -- is routinely forwarded to a grand jury even when prosecution is unlikely." - Grand Jury: father's action was justified | The Gonzales Cannon
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 21, 2012 11:32 AM

In Reply: Self Defense - Be Skeptical, and Investigate Accordingly

In reply to: Allergic to Bull: Memo to Texas “Civil Rights” Group: Fathers (Allegedly) Defending Their Daughters From Sexual Assault Have Rights, Too
---

Yeah, the civil rights guy's statement went too far over the line.

I mean, I do believe that the see-saw can teeter-totter too far either way in cases where death results from (alleged) self-defense, especially when the dead party is wholly unsympathetic. Some of the whoops and hollers in support of this father come on a bit too strong for my tastes, and make me wonder whether these folks are just itching to dispense a little vigilante justice, and perhaps even hoping to get the chance--though it's far more likely that it's just men "proving" they're "real men." (I'm not one for celebrating death, even of demonstrably evil people. I found a lot of the "bin Laden is dead" hootin' and hollerin' distasteful, too. Obviously, I don't score high with some folks on that "real men" scale.) The father, from what I've read, is remorseful over having killed the guy, in spite of what he'd done to his daughter. Some of the commenters at Allah's post talk about the residual effects of taking a life, even when it's legally justified.

I believe such cases need to be thoroughly investigated, with a little extra bias toward the rights of the guy unable to tell his side of the story, perhaps--I'm not saying the person who did the killing shouldn't be considered innocent until proven guilty or nothin', but I do think there ought to be a healthy dose of skepticism driving law enforcement to be sure that it was self-defense, not a murder dressed up to look like self-defense.

(And let me be clear, here... I'm NOT casting aspersions on the father in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. It sounds to me like he did no more or less than he felt was necessary to defend his daughter, and I fully expect that the investigation--even (especially) my "heightened scrutiny as a result of being skeptical" investigation--will bear that out.)

But I do believe that whenever someone is killed or seriously injured to the point that they cannot tell their side of the story, in a case where the living party asserts self-defense, it is incumbent on law enforcement and the legal system to take extra steps to assure that justice is served.

If ya ask me, a good bit of the uproar over the Trayvon Martin case was sparked by the fact that it didn't look like that investigation was taking place, and the lack of public relations (obviously, the investigation was going on behind the scenes, so the story wasn't as it appeared) allowed both legit and illegit factions to start asking/demanding answers.

Folks who kill and claim self-defense don't need to be charged or arrested straight off--but they do need to be thoroughly questioned and otherwise investigated, and not exonerated by law enforcement officials in the court of public opinion until they are sure no case can or should be made.

In that regard--and with an eye toward the folks who make online comments figuratively high-fiving this father...if not describing exactly what size flaying knife they would've used to peel this guys skin off alive and the like, if it was their daughter--I understand where the human rights guy was coming from. (I get vengeance, especially where one's children are concerned...but that's why we have a theoretically dispassionate law enforcement and legal system, and don't leave the administration of justice to the wronged parties alone.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 15, 2012 1:44 PM

In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, Donald Douglas)

Revised, expanded, and now updated, below, in reply to the following comment at the blog post Shut Up, They Explained: Another Blogger Threatened With Imprisonment For Writing About Brett Kimberlin | Popehat:

@Donald Douglas

"They view free speech as a right for those who uphold the progressive agenda."

That's news to me.

And I have been threatened with a defamation suit by someone who's right wing. I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies.
---

I feel yer pain...

I won't mention any names (not at Popehat, anyway), but I had a blogger (not so coincidentally named Donald Douglas) threaten to (and, according to what he himself publicly claimed, actually did) speak to two different police departments, unspecified federal authorities, at least one lawyer, AND his congressional representatives (again, at least one), primarily because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so.

(For the record, none of the folks this blogger spoke to ever made any contact with me... ...but after speaking to several folks familiar with the law and/or the internet, and getting variations of the following advice from several of 'em, I pretty much stopped "inciting" said blogger...though we do still travel in some of the same circles.)

Here was that advice: "Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers, the FBI, and his congressman enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out."

(This ties in with my recent comment at an earlier Popehat post on the subject: While those willing to stand up to Team Kimberlin even after being threatened--or actually attacked--by them are free speech heroes, there is something to be said for not poking bears or crazy people with sticks, no matter how richly they deserve it, and there is no great shame in refraining from doing so...)
---

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @4:22 am, Popehat blog time.

Updates, lots:

The blogger over at Popehat decided to remove a series of comments, beginning with mine, above, and continuing with several others that discussed what I wrote, after Dr. Douglas outed himself as the blogger to whom I was referring. While I believe the thread was discussing / debating important issues that are also at play in the Kimberlin saga, I can understand why Ken did what he did, and it is, after all, his establishment, not mine. I bear him no ill will.

That said, I don't believe the conversation should be lost, and not just because I was so heartened to read that others very quickly saw what I saw in Dr. Douglas' actions against me back then, especially as it relates to his hypocritical and nakedly partisan grandstanding about the Kimberlin matter now... ...though I'd be lying if I ever claimed that it had no bearing at all on my decision to repost the otherwise lost material. Guilty as charged.
---

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:08 am:

STFU Repsac. I went to the police because you were a ringleader in exactly the kind of campaigns that conservatives are now dealing with. You run an entire blog to attack me and organize workplace attacks: http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/ I was only after I took your harassment to the authorities that you finally stopped stalking me.

[It's 99% dormant now, and has been since February, but the "American Nihilist" blog was created to make fun of Dr. Douglas, and especially his at-one-time-pretty-consistant habit of slurring everyone and everything with which he did not agree with the adjective "nihilist." There was no "organization of workplace attacks," there, and no real "ringleader, either. I did start the blog, but there were several authors, all of whom wrote independently, and each of whom were wholly responsible for the content of their own posts. Donald is correct that I stopped responding to his posts and comments, both on my blog and on his --there was no "stalking"-- after he announced his trips to the police and congressman's offices but, as stated above, that was because it was at that moment I realized there really had to be something wrong with him. Normal, well-adjusted people don't appeal to the police and their congressional representatives to enforce their stated blog comment policies. On the advice of friends and law enforcement / legal professionals alike, I stopped poking the crazy man's cage, lest he take more extreme or violent action once he discovered that law enforcement would not make me stop commenting at his blog against his wishes.]

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:24 am:

@Repsac3: "...because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so."

Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG. This is someone who backed a campaign of workplace attacks attempting to get me fired. He was not threatened with a lawsuit for defamation. He was about to prosecuted for criminal activity. http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/intent-to-annoy-and-fascist-hate.html So folks, again, please cite the examples of conservative lawfare. The campaign to silence speech is a left-wing phenomenon. That's nice that some "liberals" are speaking up here in the comments, but that doesn't mean that it's not the left that's seeking to clamp down on speech by any means necessary. See Pamela Geller for more: "Ray Bradbury Dead, Censorship On the Rise": http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/06/ray-bradbury-dead-censorship-on-the-rise-by-robert-spencer-the-man-who-wrote-the-novel-about-censorship-fahrenheit-451.html

[There was no "harassment." At posts where Donald mentioned or referred to me, I would submit a comment defending myself against whatever slur the man had posted about me. Because he generally moderated his American Power comment section for content before the fact, my comment would not actually appear on his blog unless he allowed it to. And again, at no time did I back any campaign of workplace attacks, or in any way attempt to get to get Donald fired. In fact, I regularly spoke out against every person who ever contacted Donald's employers, whether politically partisan friend or foe, on principle. I cannot prove that I was NOT about to be prosecuted criminal activity--it's kinda hard to prove a negative--but I followed up with one of the police officers that Dr. Douglas spoke to, who assured me in no uncertain terms that I was not in any criminal legal jeopardy as far as her department was concerned (though she was not pleased with the behavior of either party in the dispute, and felt we both ought to grow up, or at least spend more time outside and away from the keyboard--advice I have tried to follow, ever since.) My family lawyer here in NY and a lawyer who specializes in internet reputation-related matters based in CA, each said the same. So maybe I was about to be prosecuted for some kinda criminal activity, or maybe I wasn't...but in point of fact, I was never prosecuted for anything, and no one from any department, office, or firm ever contacted me based on Dr. Douglas' many complaints. Make of that what you will...]

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @9:27 am:
Pertinent comments are welcome, but please do not use this as a venue to carry on disputes from elsewhere. Thank you.

***


Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @9:40 am:

The "amusing" thing? We likely would never have known Donny was the guy Repsac was talking about had he not spoken up...

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:48 am:

Ken, tell that to Repsac please. I'm not dragging in other disputes. I'm responding to falsehoods. Thanks.

[Ummm... No, no comment. Press on.]

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @10:08 am:

It was directed to everyone.

***

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @10:15 am:

Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG.

Did you ever consider, you know, banning him? And I love how you outted who, exactly, he is. That's really classy, and totally not the sort of thing people like Team Kimberlin do. Oh, wait. It is exactly the sort of thing they do. Yeah, my bad there. They also don't go to law enforcement to stop people from saying mean things about them... Oh wait, they do. Shit. Well, I'm sure I'll come up with a way you totally aren't like them, Donny, don't you worry. I'll not rest until I have discovered a way in which you are kinda like them. Well, I'll start right after my nap...

[To be more fair than I really need to be, Dr. Douglas was (and is) on a Google/blogspot blog and was using their comment system, which gives one no method for actually banning someone. One can moderate all comments before the fact, or allow all comments and delete those one does not like after they post. That said, Donald did very clearly announce that I was banned from commenting on his blog, in what I imagined to be his most authoritative voice. As he did not choose to ban himself from attacking me with all manner of slurs and falsehoods in his blog, however, I did not take his verbal banning very seriously, and continued to submit comments to those posts where he referred to me or my blog by name or other identifying feature.]

***


Goober • Jun 11, 2012 @6:00 pm:

Donald - I followed your link. I found this interesting tidbit:

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply.

All I have to say is that while repsac might be an asshat troll, you are even worse.

Are you seriously coming at us with this weak-sauce BS and claiming that you were justified in going to the authorities to get him to stop hurting your feelings because "he crossed your emotional safety boundary?" My guess is that kimberlin feels like his well-established emotional safety boundary has been crossed, too. By your standard, he is perfectly entitled to go to the police.

You want to claim that
1.) you are somehow above Bret Kimberlin and
2.)that right-wing bloggers don't engage in lawfare to stop people from saying things they don't like?

1.) You're not.
2.) You did. Or at least you tried.

You don't get to stand against Bret Kimberlin when you'd be doing the exact same thing to Repsac that Kimberlin is doing to his opponents if the authorities had taken you seriously and acted like you asked them to.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that if the police had mistakenly pursued the matter, that you wouldn't be cheering them along. Tell me that.

And to say that your case is different than Kimberlins, I wonder how...

People said things about you that you didn't like.
They wouldn't stop when you asked them to.
They wouldn't stop when you warned them to.
They wouldn't stop when you demanded them to.

And so you went to the police.

Wait, I forgot, was i just describing your case or Kimberlin's? I lost track...

Ken is right. Stop with the partisan crap, folks. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum either comes from. if you let politics taint your thinking to the point to where you can condemn a man for doing something that you did, yourself, and justify it by playing a right vs. left game, you've lost track of the target.

Oh, and my politics are probably to the right of Ken's, in case you were preparing to throw insults my way about being a lefty supporter.

***

repsac3 • Jun 11, 2012 @6:51 pm:

Sorry to cause a kerfuffle...

My intent was just to say that:

1) these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum. It's not about left or right--and especially not about "the left" and "the right," or any other demographic. It's about right and wrong, and that knows no color, creed, or political philosophy; and

2) bloggers and media types who don't discuss this whole "team Kimberlin" thing, whether because they are ignorant of the stories, or because they intentionally choose not to get involved out of confusion (some aspects go pretty far into the weeds) or out of fear of reprisal, are not evil and do not prove anything about the kind of people they are, either as individuals or as members of those demo groups I mentioned above.

As for the rest, both out of deference to the host and because it's all been said already anyway, I got nothin' more to add... (In retrospect, I'd even go back and subtract some, were it possible... But alas, bells cannot be unrung...)

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:04 pm:

To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about, especially "Goober":

1. Repsac3 sponsored workplace attacks at his blog, designed to get me fired --- ultimately I found pro bono representation to defend against the left's lies and smears, which he never repudiated. I was defending against HIS BLOG's and his allies' Kimberlin-style attacks.

2. He harassed me at the comments to MY BLOG when he was told repeatedly to cease and desist --- that's not a "free speech" issue.

3. Brett Kimberlin is waging lawfare against anyone who criticizes him ON THEIR BLOGS, whereas I've never filed a lawsuit against anyone.

I'm not going to spam the comments with the evidence of the progressive attacks on me. THIS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE AND IT'S THE LEFT TRYING TO CRUSH FREE SPEECH. Progressives are on jihad. Look at the Atlas Shrugged link above FOR JUST ONE MORE example.

And get a clue, sheesh. Name one example of conservatives doing what Brett Kimberlin is doing. God, comparing me to Kimberlin, a convicted domestic bomber, is seriously deranged. Get some help.

***

Narad • Jun 11, 2012 @7:15 pm:

To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about....

"Trolls"? I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout failed to precede you before I responded previously, but perhaps you shouldn't compound the problem by not knowing what words mean.

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:20 pm:

@Repsac3, the guy who sponsored workplace attacks against my employment:

"...these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum."

Wrong. Where are the conservatives waging lawfare against progressives for blogging the truth about someone? It's always the other way around. It goes like this: Progressives attack people. They then get called out for it by those defending the targets. And then they finally launch campaigns of destruction to obliterate their ideological enemies. The victim is either destroyed or ends up fighting long costly battles to defend themselves, as I did. It's that simple. No one here has evidence of a right-wing campaign against left bloggers who simply wrote the truth. I'll update my views when I see the evidence, but I'm not holding my breath. And with all due respect to Ken, Repsac3 is a proven liar.

[Response to the first link:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas Says The Devil I Made 'em Do It... (See comments)
And response to the second:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: Satire Impaired]

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:24 pm:

@Narad:

"I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout..."

Not. I'm an Associate Professor of Political Science at community college. The opposite of a washout, I'm a teacher and mentor to hundreds of political science students, and thousands of GE students over the years. And you? What do you do, besides launch ad hom attacks on people of which you have no clue?

***

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @7:25 pm:

No, Donny. While perhaps in this specific case it is about leftist groups funding an attack on free speech by (mostly) right-wing folks, the first target of this lawfare episode is a left-winger. And just because this single instance it is Leftists funding this, if you honestly think the Right is so virtuous as to never resort to threats of legal actions to silence critics, apparently you have never heard of Angela Corey. Nor of efforts to criminalize speech. Efforts that are supported by Republicans. See New York's efforts to pass cyber-bullying laws. See Tennesee's laws to that effect. See any number of similar instances. While, as Ken has said, there are valid partisan issues involved here, if you only care about this from a "Right vs Left" standpoint, you a) aren't helping the story because you become the basis of the Left's dismissal and b) you really don't give a flying fuck about free speech in the first place. I don't care who the fuck you think you are, Donny, but you're acting like a complete tool. How about you cut that out, hmm?

***

Jess • Jun 11, 2012 @7:31 pm:

Donald, I know I’ve posted this comment before but it bears repeating. It is what YOU make of it. You CHOOSE to make this a partisan issue and therefore in my opinion you are part of the problem. I’m with Scott Jacobs and Goober on this one. I don’t see anything about someone actually actively reaching out and contacting your employer and sending them false content to get you fired, which would be a different story all together. If your employer wastes their time getting hung up on reading some asshat’s blog you have a far bigger problem and that problem is with your employer. If you can’t delete or ignore asshat comments on your own blog you need to either become more technically competent or put on your big boy pants and suck it up knowing thats what happens when you have a blog. Ken has been the ONE place that has focused attention where it needs to be and you are becoming a very annoying distraction. Truly this is not the place for your pissing contest with another blogger. Please go away.

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @7:34 pm:

I asked people not to drag a dispute from elsewhere to here. Apparently people felt that I didn't mean it. They continued, and others engaged them in it.

I've deleted the comments that were engaging in the dispute. If you have a problem with that, or will have difficulty not engaging in this any more, please go take a breather someplace until you are OK with it.

For now, cut it out. Further persistence will be met with me editing comments to amuse myself.

***

Following Ken's putting his foot down on this whole thread, Donald tried to justify his participation in it to Ken via Twitter, offering up still more links ostensibly "proving" I am the devil incarnate or whatever, and followed that up with quite the twitter war with Scott Jacobs--who by the way, is romantically involved with Breitbart blogger Mandy Nagy (Liberty_Chick), who in turn, has been intimately involved in this whole Kimberlin affair almost from the beginning.

You can imagine how it all turned out...

Anyway... That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it

In Reply: Those who pay no attention to free speech issues online are disappointing...but not eeeeevil (Popehat, Team Kimberlin)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post The Kimberlin Crew Pokes The Bull And Gets The Horns | Popehat:

It isn't, in my mind, so much they they are Democrats therefore that party should denounce them, it is the fact they they have worked for the Democrats.

If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity.
---

"If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity."

I see where you're coming from... but I'd spend more time questioning the former proposition than pushing a "two wrongs make a right" kinda theory...especially if I was a Republican.

I mean, sure... anyone who actually worked with or funded Kimberlin, et. al. ought to be asked about their collaboration or funding, and given the opportunity to talk about why they chose to work with/fund the guy at the time, and where they stand now, based on the information about the accused parties that is available (as well as the info that isn't). And of course those who're speaking out for (or against) Team Kimberlin ought to be held accountable for whatever they actually do say. But D's (or R's) in general have no obligation to answer for Kimberlin (or for those who're accusing them). All D's (or all R's) are not responsible for what every/any individual D or R says or does...not even if the individual D or R claims to be speaking or acting in the name of all D's or R's or the causes they generally champion.

While I believe everyone ought to speak out against what's going on with Team Kimberlin--and what happened to Aaron Walker in particular (because it's the least convoluted, easiest to understand, and most egregious part of the thing (IMHO), if for no other reason)--I don't blame folks for not doing so, whether because they're frightened of retaliation or because they're just focused elsewhere.

My analogy is to firefighters: Yes, those who intentionally run into burning buildings to save lives are heroes, but I don't believe it follows that everyone who has never run into a burning building deserves to be criticized for not doing so.

In the same way, the people willing to stand up to Kimberlin--especially those willing to do so after being threatened or worse (like Aaron, or this Paul guy from the (currently) most recent Popehat post)--are free speech heroes. But that doesn't mean that folks who have ignored the story, whether intentionally or out of confusion or ignorance, should be slammed as cowards or "in league with the eeeeevil one(s)" for doing so. Not blogging about this story doesn't prove anything...not about anyone individually, and certainly not about any/all demographic group(s) to which they belong.

Coming from the left, I can say for good and certain that the folks intent on making this about attacking all progressives because Kimberlin claims to be one are causing liberals who would otherwise come out against attacks on free speech, intimidation, and lawfare to hold off, lest they be seen as agreeing that liberals in general have something to answer for, here. It's awful hard to align yourself with people who see you as evil incarnate, just because you disagree with 'em, politically...even when it is the right thing to do.
---

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @2:46 am, Popehat blog time.

X-Post: Carrie Hope Fletcher - The Silly Song

From what I can tell after checking her out over the last hour or so, I could've picked anything Carrie Hope Fletcher has put into the world for this the Goodness and Goodwill blog, but this one was my favorite (and the video that initially made me want to include her):



Finding Carrie was pure serendipity, and on a day where I kinda needed a little of exactly what she has to offer...

I recently started having a problem with youtube volume on all my devices, so I did a search, and discovered that apparently, youtube has it's own volume control; a fact I did not know up to now. (And yes, someone--either me, or the gremlins who occupy the internet--had turned mine almost all the way down sometime last week, leading me to crank up my computer volume--and still strain--every time I wanted to watch something.) After reading about the problem and the fix, I went to youtube to test it out, hit on "recommended videos," and picked one of Carrie's from the list, pretty much at random. (I'm not sure I was even looking while I picked, or for the few seconds afterward... I just needed to be watching a video to up the volume, and the one smack near in the middle of my "Videos - Recommended for You" page was as good as any.) But damned if I haven't been Hopeful, ever since... 8>) (Once I could actually hear her, and started to pay attention, obviously...) I'm sure Carrie has her bad days like we all do, but that kinda makes her even more a creature of goodness and goodwill, doesn't it?

Anyway, it'd been awhile since I posted something here, and this--the video, and the girl in general--really hit the spot (and probably saved me from sinking back into bad habits, besides. Life's too short to waste time in muck and mud. 'nuff said.)


Carrie's links:
Carrie Hope Fletcher - Facebook
Carrie Hope Fletcher - Tumblr
Carrie Hope Fletcher (carriehfletcher) - Twitter
ItsWayPastMyBedTime - YouTube
---

A Goodness and Goodwill X-post

In Reply: Quinn Cummings Talks (and authors book about) Home-Schooling

In reply to: The QC Report: There's a Smart Young Woman on a Light Blue Screen
---

First off, you look and sound great and, while too many such videos will forever take away my ability to "hear" what you write as coming out of the mouth of Lucy McFadden*, I suppose that is a good thing... ...though, I'll miss it, too.

It also has me very interested in reading the book, so it succeeds on that level, as well. Like one of the other commenters, I get a little wary around homeschoolers who do it to insulate their children from certain political or social views, because differing views are part and parcel of being an American, and it's never too early to learn to navigate those waters, but there is much value in understanding how your child learns and being able to give them the kind of individualized instruction that works best for them. (Parents ought to do that, regardless... Public education should be a floor; There is no reason parents cannot or should not supplement it with their own expertise about their own kids, even if they cannot or do not wish to homeschool.)

"Please prove you're not a robot"
I Think I'm A Bunny

*for those reading this here on What'd I Say, Google it, if you don't already get the reference.
---

Submitted for blog owner approval 6/10/12, 8:45 AM (or so... I'll update and link once the comment is approved... unless it isn't, of course...)

In Reply: It's OK For People to be COMPLETELY WRONG...and still see them as worthwhile human beings. (Allergic to Bull, Bigotry...or not)

In reply to this most excellent post, which deserves reading in full: Allergic to Bull: On Romney’s Mormonism and Religious Tolerance (Honestly, it doesn't have much to do with Romney or Mormonism, except as inspiration...)
---

Straight on double-plus right, sir...

Many (most?) religions preach and teach that theirs is the one true path to all good things (however they define that), and many go further and say that those who don't follow their particular path will never get there... While it's possible for such beliefs to lead to bigotry--especially when governments or other institutions of power (including certain religious institutions themselves, ironically) get involved--the beliefs themselves are not bigoted.

I have this hippie dippy book called Das Energi, by Paul Williams (whattaya want, I'm a lib) that talks about the ability to discriminate as being key to the ability to see and perceive, and suggests that we draw our lines between people with disappearing ink. See the differences between us (be they religious, political, ethnic/heritage, ...), sure, but don't take them beyond the situations where they actually matter.

There has to come a point where it's ok for other people to be completely wrong about something--because they're not the same religion or denomination as you, or vote for candidates in the other party, or like mushrooms on their pizza--and still treat them as fellow citizens and worthwhile human beings deserving of respect.

(On that other thing... You was robbed and wronged, and I hope you get your rights back very soon. While I have issues with the partisan bent and allegations of collective guilt that some in your corner are trying to put on the thing, I unequivocally support free speech for all, even folks I probably don't much agree with... The best (and only) answer for speech you don't like or agree with is lots more speech... 'nuff said.)
---

Submitted for blog owner approval Posted: June 10, 2012 7:43 AM

In Reply: "It’s about free speech, here and now..."

In reply to Your Free Speech Ends at the Point a Bully Says So | The Moderate Voice
---

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Don’t tell me, tell the guy who opined that this Maryland decision has anything to do with “political expression” or “people on the far left,” rather than a legally skilled crazy person who is targeting ANYONE, right or left, who says too much about his sordid past.

It took me awhile to come around to the position that Aaron Walker was being railroaded, precisely because so many people have been making it about “the George Soros / Tides Foundation funded far left hitman” and saying that “there can be no law or justice as long as Eric Holder is running things”.

It’s not about “the Left.” It’s not about the guy’s history as a bomber or any of his convictions from the 80′s and 90′s. It’s about free speech, here and now, and what Kimberlin (and perhaps a few friends, though the evidence of their roles is still a little too vague for me) is doing to silence his critics.
---

Posted MAY 30, 2012 AT 7:15 PM

In Reply: "It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic." (Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker, Free Speech)

In Reply to the following comment at The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested:

To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors.

It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic. - jpe - May 29, 2012 @3:23 pm

I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons I said I wasn’t sure justice was served, here…

Like others, I have a feeling there are two separate issues though; the peace order, which, if I’m understanding it right, had been in place short-term already, but was made long-term today, and Aaron Walker (Worthing)’s arrest, which may or may not have anything to do with violating the temporary peace order that was already in place, and which, if it does, may include his instigation and participation in the blogburst as a means of harassment. (Other theories / rumors include contempt of court for behavior in the courtroom today, assault, stemming from a previous physical altercation between Walker and Kimberlin (he hit him, or not; he took his iPad and refused to return it until officers showed up;…) There are also questions as to whether Walker’s continued participation in posting about Kimberlin would be a violation of the peace order.

The closest thing I’ve found to anyone speaking for the other side of this thing is the blog and twitter stream of BreitbartUnmasked. I don’t know who it is, though the righties all seem to believe it’s one of the principle players–either Ron Brynaert or Neal Rauhauser--though some even think it’s Brett Kimberlin, himself. Check it out, but since the guy’s anon, take what he offers with as much or little salt or other spices as your taste dictates…

I think at this point just about everyone left and right whose interested in the saga wants mainstream / lamestream media coverage, and law enforcement / legal system action where necessary. (Though, it is a little scary how many rightwing commenters I’ve seen at various blogs today taking about “street justice,” or similar terms… Thankfully, they’re getting slapped down by others at the blogs (mostly), but still…) If Kimberlin, etc. are guilty, I want them to face justice. But if there’s no evidence that they are, or that one or more of their accusers are stretching the truth, I want to know that — and perhaps for them to face justice.

Lastly… Anyone else have an issue viewing The Mahablog on an iPad? When I read the comments, it defaults to–and snaps back to–the top of the comment stream. I finally figured out that I could keep it scrolled to where I wanted by hitting the comment permalink that was as close to where i wanted to be as possible–for example, to write this comment in the box, i hit the permalink of the last comment submitted, and even now keep snapping back to that comment (which luckily, was short, so I can still see the comment box–but it’s something I’d never experienced on another blog…
---

Posted May 29, 2012 @9:10 pm

In Reply: With Friends Like These... (The Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker)

In reply to The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested

I don’t know whether or not justice was served, but it is kinda–well, let’s just say ironic–that the judge cited elements of the Rightwing shit-storm against Kimberlin (threats of violence in blog posts and comments in a whole lot of the “blogburst” posts, according to rw theorists) in granting the peace order.

Like I said… To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors, not their target(s). They came off looking like a lynch mob out for frontier justice, trying to do the job that law enforcers and the courts refused to do.

And it bit ‘em in the ass.

Kimberlin / Walker Peace Order

“With friends like these,…”
---

May 29, 2012 @1:53 pm

In Reply: There is such a thing as hate speech, but this wasn't it. (Madeleine McAulay)

In reply to Open Thread: Does Madeleine McAulay's View On Gay Marriage Constitute 'Hate Speech'? (Video)
---

Nope, it never was hate speech.

I disagree with the idea that religious beliefs should be the basis of secular laws, and would prefer to see the word "marriage" (a religious rite) stricken from all secular laws (perhaps replaced with "legal union," or some such thing), dividing the religious definition from the secular one (the state could recognize the religious marriage ceremony as one form of a legal union, without diluting the term "marriage" by equating the religious rite with the ceremonies performed before judges, ship captains, etc.. It would also allow legislatures to write laws about legal unions that are not beholden to anyone's religion, and without the charge that they're "redefining" anything.

But, I have no problem with folks who see it differently for whatever reason--including their religion--expressing their thoughts on the subject, and do not think there is much of any hate expressed in the video. (If anything, she's more snarky toward (& I believe, politically bigoted against) liberals (as a group, I mean) than she is gay folks... ...though I wouldn't say she hates them, either.)

The video's back up on YouTube, by the by... (I was actually searching for commentary about that--whether YouTube said anything as to why, even after reaffirming their decision a second time when Madeleine appealed, they chose to put it back up--when I stumbled onto this site.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted 5/28/12), 11:30 am (or thereabouts... This is one of those "posted 7 hours ago" set-ups... ...and I can't be bothered to watch for the minute "7 hours ago" becomes "8 hours ago.")

In Reply: Standing Up For What You Believe is Right isn't Always Easy (Ask Replacements Ltd. and Madeleine McAulay)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the American Conservative post "Punishing Businesses on Gay Marriage," about the backlash against Replacements Ltd., a North Carolina business who rallied against the anti-marriage equality amendment that recently passed in that state:

I doubt that the conservatives who stop shopping at Replacements will take the course of action that homosexual activists have taken against those opposed to SSM. The homosexual activists are especially aggressive and are determined to shut down all speech that they disagree with check out this link American Power: YouTube Pulls Madeleine McAulay Gay Marriage Video as Violating Guidlines on 'Hate Speech' to see an example
5/26/12, 10:22 AM
---

It was the wrong decision, to be sure... ...but it was youtube's wrong decision.

I get why people might be offended when you suggest they're second class citizens, so I don't actually blame the "homosexual activists" who complained about Madeleine McAulay's video--though they were wrong; it isn't hate speech to spout Christian dogma about marriage; it just fails to take into account that we shouldn't and generally don't look to the Bible to write the laws in this country, in part because this is the result when we do--but it was up to youtube to stand up for speech, and in the end it was youtube who failed Madeleine McAulay ...and all of the people who use their service. (Twice, in fact. Madeleine appealed their original decision calling the video hate speech, and even after looking a second time, they still said it contained hate speech.)

And (tying this back to the original subject) there are a whole lot of conservatives and others who feel strongly about speech who are vowing not to use YouTube, based on decisions like these. I'm all for voting with your wallet and your feet when you feel strongly about a political or social issue. So, perhaps I'll use youtube a little less, and spend less time and money in CA and NC, until they get right with human rights... except for Replacements, Ltd. and others in those states who stood firm against laws that make love and equality a crime. (And having spent some time in the dinnerware industry back in the 80's and 90's, I can say that I heard nothing but good things about Replacement's Ltd. back then, so even apart from my being down with their stance on marriage equality, I recommend them highly to anyone who needs to find discontinued dinnerware, flatware, crystal pieces for their table.)
---

Submitted Posted 5/27/12, 2:13 AM
---

Also:
Replacements Limited’s Stand for Gay Marriage Has a Cost - NYTimes.com
American Power: Bob Page, Replacements Ltd. CEO Who Turned Firm Into Pro-Gay Campaign Outlet, Now Concerned His Radical Politics Could 'Hurt Our Business' ("Radical politics"... What a maroon...)
Gay 'Replacements Ltd' Owner Faces NC Hate After Opposing Amendment One| News | Towleroad

In Reply: "The only way to keep the word “marriage” a sacred bond, is to keep it from being used in secular law."

In reply to the following comment at the post (VIDEO) Controversies of Gay Marriage :: Faith Hope and Politics:

Wellspoken. My question is: In states where Civil Unions are recognized, and give gays the same “rights” as heterosexual married couples, why do gays still insist on being “married”?
May 23, 2012 at 9:06 am
---

In case I was in any way unclear, I’m in favor of secular marriage equality… (just in case anyone wants to rethink how well spoken I am, or anything… 8>)

As to the question, I seem to recall reading that there are over 1300 federal benefits attached to the word “marriage,” not to mention that DOMA prevents a gay couple legally “married” or “civilly united” in one state from moving to a state without marriage equality / civil unions from remaining legally united in that state, which really must stink for those affected, not to mention calling that whole US Constitution “full faith and credit clause” into question (though obviously, the powers that be in the legal / justice profession didn’t see it that way…)

That’s why I believe that the only way to keep the word “marriage” as a sacred bond, is to keep it from being used in federal, state, and local secular laws, which, if you ask me, is where the real redefinition of marriage took place years and years ago, when they first turned a religious sacrament into a term of secular law.
---

Posted May 23, 2012 at 9:35 am

In Reply: Defining Marriage: Church for Church, State for State, and Never the Twain Should Meet (Madeleine McAulay, Faith Hope and Politics Blog)

In reply to re: Vulgar Comments from “Controversies of Gay Marriage” :: Faith Hope & Politics, and more specifically, the following video:



(And shame on YouTube, both for taking it down, and for making me link to Breitbart to put it back up here.)

---


The problem as I see it is that the religious sacrament of marriage was written into secular law, where it has no place. It is and should be one's faith that defines marriage, NOT state or federal secular law.

That's not to say that secular law should have no interest in who is or is not a family unit, but there is no reason that any church or faith should set the rules for the general population, at least some of whom are not adherents to the faith setting those rules. We are not a theocracy, and it makes no more sense to use biblical definitions in secular law than it would be to allow secular law to define religious sacraments.

US law cannot redefine sacred marriage. But then, the church cannot define secular "marriage,"(that is, the term as used in federal and state laws) either.

In a more perfect world, the word "marriage" would be stripped from all secular laws--perhaps be replaced with "civil union," or some similar non-sacred term--leaving marriage to God and church alone. But since that will probably never happen, I have to hope that folks are intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand that legal marriage (and all the laws and legalities that stem from it) and sacred marriage (the sacrament, and all that God expects from those who enter into it) are not necessarily the same, and indeed never have been.

I'm fully in favor of religions defining sacred marriage for their believers with as little outside interference from the government as possible. I'm also in fully favor of we, the people, legislating, enforcing, and adjudicating the state and federal laws concerning "civil marriage" with as little influence from religious institutions as possible. To do otherwise is to allow the State to control the Church, or the Church to control the State. Neither circumstance is in keeping with American values or tradition.
---

Submitted May 21, 2012 at 5:00 am (or thereabouts... I didn't know it wasn't going to post, so I didn't pay sufficient attention to the exact time.)
Resubmitted May 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm (It doesn't seem to be a moderated blog... Maybe there was a glitch, the first time... ...but it didn't post the second time, either...)
---

X-Post: I Think I'm A Bunny - Todd McHatton - Galactic Champions of Joy

(h/t: One Flew Over the Playpen -- Yes, from the same offering that brought you yesterday's Goodness post.)

Links:
Todd McHatton
HAND AID || Puppets for Equality (for Puppets)
---

A Goodness and Goodwill x-post

X-Post: Want happiness? Think like a toddler

A Goodness and Goodwill x-post
---

Words stolen from this One Flew Over the Playpen post of the same name. I didn't take all of it, and I didn't even want to take as much as I did, but I also didn't want to lose the essence of AnnieDubs' post. Still, anyone interested should read the whole thing at her post. (In fact, I'd recommend reading her blog, in general: One Flew Over the Playpen | One-time political insider turned stay-at-home momma.)

Toddlers make every single choice based on a single criterion: Does this have the potential to make me happy at this exact moment. I say at this exact moment, because the moments following something like lying down in a rain puddle, diving off the sofa, seeing if your finger will fit down the bathtub drain, and smacking the dog across the nose are accompanied by a decidedly unfun aftermath. But that’s not the point. The point is to not think, to just do. To give every possible opportunity for happiness, even if it’s fleeting, the chance it deserves.

Most of the time, I am the buzz kill to O’s high on life. BE CAREFUL. DON’T TOUCH THAT. SLOW DOWN. But sometimes, I follow him around and do what he does. We run wildly through the park with no direction. We put all the pillows in the house in one pile on the floor and throw ourselves onto them. We tear up magazines because the sound is so cool.

I also let O fall. A lot. I worry that if I ever had to take him to the hospital, they’d call Social Services because he is a mosaic of scrapes and bruises on any given day. But generally, if I am confident he can’t break his neck and probably won’t break a bone, I believe the aftermath is worth the adventure.

If you are having a bad day, you should stop for a moment and act like a toddler. And don’t give me that I have responsibilities BS. Go outside and just run without thinking. Stick your hand in some mud just to feel it ooze under your fingernails. Take something – just anything you see – and dump it on the floor to hear the noise. Make the craziest sound you can think of until you feel better.

I know my job is literally to follow around a toddler. I know, I know. My life is sweet ass. But like I said, I’m still a buzz kill to O 99% of the time. It doesn’t matter what my job is now, I still think like an adult. How much time do I have? What needs to get done? What’s the next step?

You gotta force yourself to think differently sometimes. O is right. Sometimes happiness is watching a plane float by. Sometimes it’s rubbing yogurt through your hair. Sometimes it’s spinning in circles until you can’t spin any more.

It doesn’t matter how much planning I do or how thoroughly I weigh the consequences, happiness really doesn’t ever change, whether you’re a toddler or adult…it is always fleeting. But I forget that. I keep forgetting it’s not a long-term accomplishment. I’ve been thinking lately about how I’m not doing enough with myself. I’m not “furthering my career” or “making the most of my time.” But when I look back at the people and things that have made me most happy in my life, they are a series of tiny, fleeting moments that can’t be quantified. Somehow they all just add up into one big general state of just feeling happy.

So when I’ve been feeling like that, I take a tip from O. I grab a little bit of happiness where ever I can find it, even if it’s fleeting. Even if there’s a mess to clean up afterward. It’s worth it every time.

I have nothing to add...

X-Post: Of Mommies (Commies?!?) and Mean Girls

A Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post
---

So there was this contest, held by a popular site for moms and mommy bloggers. (Photo in case the page changes, now that the contest is over. Click the photo(s) to embiggen.):

The contest was open for three weeks. Folks would nominate themselves or their friends, and the general public would vote on their favorite political mommy blogs or, it seems, political blogs written by women who are mommies (though you'd scarcely know it by their posts). While the contest blurb did not make it clear, it was possible to vote for more than just your favorite blog; in fact, you could vote for as many blogs as you wanted, once every 24 hours.

Going into the final week, a liberal blog called Monologues of Dissent was at the top of the list. This did not make the conservative bloggers very happy.

So, this happened:

and this happened:

and this:

and this:

(The one above, along with the "Lonely Conservative" post at the top of the list, were subsequently deleted. I'll get to the likely reason why, shortly.):

and then there were these:

And that by no means concludes the list. This thing shot through this particular segment of the Con blogosphere like wildfire, and posts like these abounded.

On and on it went... Dismissive, partisan derision, like calling the liberals "Commie Mommies" became the theme. (Yes, one of the liberal bloggers in the contest did call herself a Commie Mommy Blogger at least one time (and though I can't prove it, common sense says she did so in response to the crazy "red scare" commentary of Right Wingnuttia). Whatever her reason though, one thing is clear to anyone who bothers to look; Right there in the SAME POST, she also said...:

...proving once again that satire is lost on quite a few conservatives.)

And, while the conservative mean girls and their like-minded, lunkheaded boyfriends were ginning up support for the popular clique and trashing the competition, so they could become the homecoming queens of the internet, or whatever, what were the liberal moms doing?

This:

Political Mamas � The Mamafesto:

A few weeks ago I got an email saying I was nominated for a “Top 25 Political Mom Bloggers” award. After deciding it wasn’t actually spam, I admit I got a little giddy. I’m none too savvy as far as these blogging awards go, and to be honest, I’m not even sure what it really all means (a pretty little .gif to attach to my site? meh. More traffic = more folks reading about gender, feminism, reproductive rights, etc? Yes please!).

And, I’m pretty sure there isn’t even an actual prize.

So why has it turned so ugly?

I’ll be honest to say that I’m more than flattered that somebody thought to nominate me for top political blogger. I also think it’s pretty rad that there are enough moms out there interested and invested in politics to even have such a category. That in and of itself speaks volumes to me, and energizes the little activist in me. Regardless of where these women stand, they’re still engaged enough to want to discuss the political climate in our country today.

But somehow, it’s become less about the actual politics and issues and more about “sticking it to the other side.” When I saw some blogs rapidly spike through the polling list, I became curious and visited some of them. Instead of just asking for votes, there were posts that demeaned and ridiculed other bloggers whose views didn’t mesh with their own. Attack the politics, sure. But the bloggers? Why stoop to that level. Over an internet poll?

I just don’t get it.

I’ll debate the issues all you want, but when you start slinging out insults like “commie mommies?” What’s the point? What happened to winning on your own platform? Why do we need to malign others to build ourselves up? Seems like a hollow victory in the end to me.

Turning this into a popularity contest just adds more weight to the whole Mommy Wars game, and frankly I don’t want to play if those are the rules. I’m not going to badmouth anyone, or try to instill fear that the end of the world is near if the other side comes out victorious (again, we’re talking about a random internet voting poll. This ain’t the Hunger Games folks).

Yet, here I am, humbly asking for you to click this link and shoot a vote my way. You don’t need to sign up for anything, and actually – you can even vote for more than one blogger at a time!

For instance, you could also vote for Blue Milk, Mamapundit, MomsRising, PunditMom, The Radical Housewife, Hello Ladies, Femamom, The Feminist Breeder , Viva La Feminista and any others on the main site that tickle your political fancy.

Please – share this post and encourage your friends to vote as well. You can vote once every 24 hours. If anything, think of this as practice for the real, actually important impending national election.

and this:

Confessions of a Commie Mommy | One Flew Over the Playpen:

I started this blog for two reasons: 1) I was afraid being a stay-at-home mom was making a certain part of my brain mushy and 2) I was realizing that life as a mom “outside the Beltway” was like a slap in the face – there were so many things I thought I understood before, but clearly had no idea. Literally, my water broke, O popped out, and in an instant I went from insider to outsider, and started getting the education that came with it. I thought it would be fun to capture my thoughts and share them with my friends.

But what I hadn’t completely figured out was that leaving DC and becoming a mom in the ‘burbs of Illinois, where everything I knew and almost everyone I cared about was hundreds of miles away, had made me feel incredibly alone and sometimes really sad. I am so lucky to be able to stay home with O, but it’s been hard for me to redefine myself. Being a mom is amazing, but it’s also monotonous and isolating. It’s easy to feel like the whole world is passing you by.

This blog made me feel like I was a little bit “in the know” again. And people were sending me notes saying they liked a post or suggesting new ideas. I email with people I haven’t spoken to in ages. I even email with total strangers. It got me off my butt to start volunteering and getting involved with local issues. It was just what I needed.

I also realized there’s this whole community of moms who write about policy and politics. They are so much savvier than I am. And can clearly write faster in a baby nap than I can. I started thinking, wow, these people are taking the whole “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand the rules the world” thing and trying to change the way people think. About women, about our kids, about life. Rockin’. I want to do that.

So when some nice person nominated my blog for this Circle of Moms competition, I 1) didn’t want to be in last place (duh) and 2) thought, well, it’s not like I’m getting paid, at least I might get some positive feedback other than O not throwing the food I made him all over the floor. I also learned about some other awesome blogs. I even voted for two of the super conservative blogs because I thought they were well written. That was the point of the competition, right?

I’m such a dope. Somewhere between Capitol Hill and Mommyland, I got all mushy, moms-are-the-best, we-all-just-want-right-by-our-kids and totally forgot what a bunch of assholes are out there with blogs. Yeah, I know, I’m the real asshole. Here I was writing a blog from my own perspective, and despite being a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, trying to be occasionally really critical of the Administration when I thought they deserved it. I try to write as well as I can in the 45 minutes I have allotted. And then I was naive enough to think this competition wasn’t just about who could be the craziest person dangling by their pinkie finger from the edge of the political spectrum.

Last night I got on the Circle of Moms site to see that a bunch of the conservative blogs had put out a call to “stop the Commie Mommies.” At first I laughed about it with Tedd. Ha, ha, there go those crazies. And then, I got indignant. This is why people – especially people in power – think blogs are ridiculous hobbies by people with nothing better to do than spout drivel and propaganda to readers who already drank the Kool-aid. Some of these blogs are definitely not trying to make our kids’ lives better. They’re spewing hate on an Internet that already has enough crap on it.

Circle of Moms is a really great resource for parents and it’s clearly not their fault their nice competition got hijacked. If you are a mom in need of info, they have awesome stuff. And I bet I sound like a sore loser. I am honestly nowhere near as cool as the vast majority of political mom blogs and don’t expect to be. But this list – as least what it has become – isn’t what I’m about and I’m kind of sorry for asking everyone to spend so much time voting for me. Yes, at the beginning I had a longing to beat certain sites. But I realized now I’m just playing into the BS.

I’m sure in real life these people are probably decent and hopefully wouldn’t call me a Commie Mommy to my face. (Who am I kidding? – I’ve seen enough of their protests to know better.) And there are extremes on both sides that are equally as intolerant. But I only have a small amount of time in my day to try to do some good after the other 99% of me I pour into O. I’m going to focus on that.

Sigh. Motherhood is isolating enough. The world is hateful enough. And I already spend my day surrounded by poop. Enough already.

Peace, love & happy babies,

AnnieDubs

Even if I weren't in sympathy with their liberal thinkin', I know which group I'd want to support, just based on the differences in the way they approached both the contest and the other blogs and bloggers competing.

And that's not my only beef with the contest.

I'm not a mother.

I'm not even a parent.

I haven't paid much attention to mommybloggers, except for Quinn Cummings at The QC Report (because I thought she was great as a child actress in the late 70's, but especially because her blog and book (Notes from the Underwire: Adventures from My Awkward and Lovely Life) are among the funniest things I've ever read), and my post about Shellie Ross, a young mother who lost a son in a tragic accident, and was pretty mercilessly attacked on some social media sites for how she responded to her son's death (What'd I Say?: Shellie Ross, Twitter, and The 'Right' Way to Grieve).

But reading through some of the blogs in this contest, I discovered that mommy bloggers who discuss politics bring a new dimension to the topics we politically-minded folks think about and discuss. While I do not want to slight female bloggers who discuss politics and are also mothers by any means, there's something different, refreshing, and special about mothers who discuss politics and society while looking through the lens of their children's present and future.

So, to my way of thinkin', anyway, it's too bad that this mom site chose to highlight political bloggers who are moms (even one's who seldom if ever discuss their children, parenting, or how politics and society affects either) rather than mommy bloggers who discuss politics, which as I said, brings a whole new dimension to the topics they discuss. And I'm not just saying that because, at least the way the contestants shook out this year, most of the conservative bloggers are political bloggers who happen to be moms, and most of the liberal bloggers are mommy bloggers who happen to discuss politics, or that of the top 25, 15 are conservative bloggers, but not mommy bloggers, and 4 are mommy bloggers who are liberal. (The rest of the 25: actual conservative mommy bloggers, and one liberal blogger who happens to be a mom.)

While they can certainly run their contest any way they wish, here's what I would do, next year...

Mommy bloggers only (or two categories: Mommy bloggers who discuss politics, and political bloggers who happen to have kids.)

Vote for one blog, one time. (Perhaps with an option to change your vote, from one blog to another, until the contest is over.)
NO voting once a day, and NO voting for as many blogs in a day as you want, both of which lead to the "poll freeping" that occurred this year. (While it wasn't against the rules to have folks who share one's politics, but likely never read word one of most of the blogs they voted for, vote en mass for every conservative blog on the list, it defeats the purpose. It wasn't the best blogs who won. It was the blogs who could muster up the most political support. It was the mean girls who attacked their fellow contestants. And it turned what could've been a pretty good contest for mothers and politically-minded folks everywhere into a joke.

As one person put it in a blog comment I saw:

Oh, almost forgot...
The reason some of the mean girls edited or deleted their attack posts?

The rules of the contest:
(From the Top25 Faqs - Circle of Moms):

And from the Blog with Integrity site:

It's all "hit, hit, harder, HARDER" until the bullies realize they may get thrown out of the game for their unsportsmanlike (mean girl) conduct...

I added a "Political MommyBlogger" blogroll to the Wingnuts and Moonbats blog. I urge you to check a few of 'em out for a fresh perspective on politics, and on parenting...

And for the record, if the contest were run according to the rules I outlined, and I could only cast one vote for one blog, it would be for The Mamafesto. A class act all around, and passionate about her family and the world they (we) all live in... If you're only willing or able to click one of the links in the "mommy blogger" list, I recommend you make it hers...
---

Added link:
Commie Mommies, Yay! - femamom.com