Brief Comment...

Every once in a while LIFE gets in the way of my writing blog entries, here or on Politicalgates.  You've all heard the "dog ate my homework" excuse, but I have a couple new ones.

With Wisconsin workers trying their best to hold on to rights they've fought for and earned long ago (and watching those rights dissolve), with the tragedy, the extreme tragedy in Japan with the most massive earthquake ever measured and the horrible devastation resulting from a huge set of tsunami waves... nothing should or could get in the way of these major events.

Then we have my work scenario... after 14 years of working for the same government agency but under three different contractors, and after 5 different managers in those contractor agencies, I finally wound up under one who is appalled that I might care more for our mutual client than I do for her.  I do know the client pretty well... As a result, in my most recent performance review, I received heavily downgraded marks because my new (within last 9 months) supervisor challenged the fact that I resist one of her decisions because it negatively affects my job, my co-workers, and our client's objectives. 

Too complicated to explain in detail, but this is the FIRST time I've ever encountered a supervisor (in over 40 years of working!!) who wanted me to jump through certain hoops just because she said so, even if it meant my team members and our client and our deliverables would be negatively impacted.

Add on to that that we've got one cat here (my housemate's) who is dying.  Thanks be, my female kitty is most certainly pregnant, so we have this birth coming up.  And then, my daughter is pregnant also, too, wow!  First time for her. Late coming, after a tubal even. 

I guess this is all to say that I want to hug you all and write, but there's not a lot of room or time right now. 

Be well, and do what you can to be happy. 

With Thanks to WarIsACrime.org:

StoryOfCitizensUnited.org

Bailey Manuscript Brouhaha

It would have been enough, in fact more than enough, at least in my mind ... had the Mudflats people simply said,

It appears that a manuscript we have been working on for over a year has been distributed well beyond what we intended when we sent it to our publicist. Several outlets, news organizations and blogs included, are writing about one or another aspect of the book we hoped to publish.

Those we know have had access to the manuscript, either through their publishing stories about it or through their statements that they received it from one or another individual, will be contacted by our attorneys and asked to cease and desist and also asked to reveal from whom they received a copy and to whom they themselves distributed a copy.

In the meantime, we ask for our readers' patience while we determine our next best course of action to publish this critically important manuscript.

Now, wouldn't that have been better?  The high road, people, the high road.  You only get a chance to take it once.

One More Reason (as if we needed another regarding Mrs. Palin)

There are SO many professions and even mundane-type jobs where it is essential to think before acting. Would your employers or customers or co-workers forgive you when time and again you jumped to conclusions? Even carpenters can't afford to be hasty (measure twice, cut once), much less CEOs and Presidents.

But then, we have Mrs. Palin, who wants to help the media become more truthful because she has a degree in Communications or Journalism or something. Getting those pesky whos, whats, wheres, whys and whens is difficult, you betcha!

I wonder who made this mistake.  Someone jumped the gun and someone tweeted as SarahPalinUSA that the White House was only proposing a very small budget cut.  Someone grabbed this information from a site called The Blaze and ran with it!

FYI,

The Blaze is a news, information and opinion site brought to you by Glenn Beck and a dedicated team of writers, journalists & video producers.

The article that no doubt inspired Mrs. Palin to tweet her little chastisement of her arch-enemy, President Obama, even put up several great graphics showing just how tiny the current administration's budget cuts were.

Unfortunately, The Blaze shares premature-conclusion-jumping syndrome with Mrs. Palin today, since the pie chart is egregiously incorrect. The cuts proposed amount to at least $75 billion (with a B), far more by several magnitudes than the $775 million all the RWNJ's are cackling about.

Not only The Blaze, but dozens of other Beck-groupie sites are screaming about this paltry $775 million set of cuts.  Just Google "775 million budget cuts" to see who all ran with this false story.

CBS explains,

[Glenn Beck's Web site] uses an op-ed by White House Budget Director Jacob Lew to suggest that Mr. Obama was proposing to cut $775 million from the budget, and goes on to mock that amount as insignificant.

The problem? Lew wrote in his op-ed that he was only discussing "a small fraction of the scores of cuts" in the budget proposal, not the total proposed cuts, as a Democratic official pointed out to Ben Smith. Now, it's difficult to quantify the exact total of those first year cuts, and there is new spending that actually increases the deficit projection for 2012. But the cuts themselves are certainly more than Palin suggests: there are $2.5 billion in cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program alone, for example. Smith writes that the proposed cuts, in total, add up to about $75 billion.

I can't begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be should Mrs. Palin ever, ever get into a position of having to make decisions for the country. She can't even fact-check what she tweets because she is so damn eager to blast President Obama.

Quickie Time Again

This time it's about abortion.


The major hypocrisy with those who want the Government to step in and tell women they may not terminate a pregnancy (yes, the very same big bad get Government off our backs people promote this) is this:

1. If they themselves (women of course) get pregnant and don't want to deliver, they have the means to discreetly get rid of the problem thanks to their financial resources, regardless of whatever law may be in place.  That's the reason Roe v Wade still exists, actually. Do you really think these women want to be lawbreakers?  No.  They just want to reserve the privilege for themselves.
2. These same people, male and female, almost universally support the death penalty. At what point in "life" does a human being cease to deserve preservation? Why does the pro-life crowd hunger for killing, especially when we know our justice system is imperfect and those convicted are not always guilty? Is it only the mass of cells inside a woman's uterus that is sacred?  Not the mass of cells that walks down the street?
3. They also are, almost universally, gung-ho for the Bush doctrine (listen up Sarah...), which basically asserted that we have a right to invade anywhere in the world we think someone may be thinking about doing bad things to Americans.  Invasions mean killing.  People dying.  Children and other innocents with guts ripped out, dead. The numbers of innocents slain in Iraq since 2003 is staggering.  The legacy of our phosphorus and our depleted uranium arms and armaments will continue to devastate the land and its peoples for many generations to come.
4. They basically support the military-industrial complex which runs on OIL and creates jobs only in the weapons manufacturing industries. They also basically support guns and high-volume clips for automatic weapons, even though a hunter never needs this firepower, and even though our police chiefs fight against the overpowering weapons.
5. They turn a blind eye to the horrendous civilian body counts that result from "war" and never have a thing to say about the tens of thousands of infants born with horrific deformities due to our use of illegal munitions.

In short, the pro-life crowd acts as if it is anti-Jesus and anti-life in every form other than that of the unborn fetus. Their hands are so bloody in every other aspect of human and mammal life that their feigned disgust at the thought of someone aborting a fetus is laughable.

People are certainly entitled to their opinions.  But if what you voice out loud cannot be supported and sustained, due to the hypocrisy in the rest of your life, you basically lose.  Make sure that by protesting of abortions you do not also inspire someone to gun down the medical professionals who provide this vital, legal service.  Bill O'Reilly will forever be on my personal a-hole list for broadcasting, day after week, "Tiller the baby killer."

If you feel ultra-strongly about abortion, revisit how you feel about other kinds of involuntary life termination.  I'd be a lot more likely to give you space if you also oppose the death penalty and wars of choice.

Time for a Quickie

I don't want to let my own blog have an atrophy (lol, h/t to Sarah Palin who frequently uses verbs as nouns) while I'm writing for Politicalgates.  Once in a while, therefore, also too, I'll try and post on H&HT a simple phrase that boggles my mind.

Today's phrase is the frequently heard justification by politicians, "The American People want.... [fill in the blank]."

Since when do the American people speak with a unified monolithic voice? More often than not, the pol who prefaces his statement with "The American people want..." does not, in any shape or fashion speak for me.  I do not want the recently passed Health Care bill undone, for instance.  I do not want us to stop looking at ways to control guns, their ownership, their ammunition.  I do not want to get any more proof of President Obama's citizenship than what has already been proffered.  I do not want us to strip mine in West Virginia or send jobs overseas to India or drill for oil in sensitive environments like ANWR or encourage parents to pull their children out of public schools in favor of home-schooling or private schooling.

In short, any pol who declares that he/she knows what the American people want is trying very hard to pull the wool over our eyes.  They haven't got a clue.  Even when they poll us they don't ask the right questions.  And no poll can reflect the depth of opinion that exists on any single topic.  I am very wary of a talking head or a politician trying to support his or her own viewpoint (be it conservative or liberal or libertarian or whatever) by telling me on the TV that he or she knows what the American people want.

They don't.  They can't.  They should simply be responsible to their own communities, their own constituents (and NOT to the lobbyists), and quit with the all-encompassing "I'll tell you what you feel and think" nonsense.  They should say, out loud, "MY constituents by a whatever % margin feel like this:..."

They don't speak for me.  Don't let them speak for you or tell you what you think, either.

To Commenters at and Owners of Immoral Minority and Palingates

Background

Since August 2008 I have been an active reader of and occasional commenter on Mudflats, Immoral Minority, Palin's Deceptions, Bree Palin, Team Truther, Palingates and a good handful of others.  I also devoted many posts (granted, infrequently) on my own blog to 'things Palin' over the years. During this entire time I have used the same screen name, Ennealogic, so if you want to go back through and check what I wrote and where, Google is your friend.

I feel I know many of you who have also kept the same online name. Many of you have also posted a comment or two here on occasion. Some of what I have to say is for those who remain without an online persona, though, so please read carefully.

To those posting at Immoral Minority (IM)

Some of you are flaming not only the blog Palingates, some are also casting serious aspersions on Patrick and Kathleen who are as of today no longer contributing there, and even more, some are naming individuals who frequently comment on the blog in a very disparaging way. Why?  Who does this? Nearly everyone who frequents Palingates and leaves comments there has a screen name, unlike at IM where nearly everyone posts as "Anonymous," so I guess you can feel safe that your commentary will never be noticed for its viciousness.  But the point is, what on earth is there to gain from discrediting the #1 Political Blog of the Year? I remember when Mudflats earned that distinction, and it was well deserved.  I believe Palingates definitely earned the distinction too, for its unassailable, detailed, researched, backed-up posts on 'things Palin.'

If you do not like the articles, you certainly do not have to read them.  I don't frequent blogs whose approach I disdain.  Why belittle a blog in a comment on another blog which supposedly has the same aims?  And if you do not like the tone of the comments, or the frequency with which one or another person made a comment there, why read the comments?  Or why not just skip over that person's comment?  Why go to Immoral Minority and make such snide comments there when both Palingates and IM share the same goal of making sure that the ex-half-term Governor of Alaska has no political future?

To Immoral Minority's Owner

Gryphen, my little blog has received significant views as a result of your linking to it. I do not do what you do, nor do I do it the way you do it, but my goals, too, for Hypocrites and Heffalump Traps (at least for the last 2-1/2 years) are the same as yours when it comes to 'things Palin.' I appreciate your notice of my past posts and thank you for maintaining the link to my blog under the 'Sarah Palin's Least Favorite Blogs' category.

But I have to wonder, knowing full well that you do review all comments before approving them, why you would give a pass to so many negative and truly harmful comments towards Palingates, towards Patrick and Kathleen, and towards those who comment there, on today's topic titled, "Is the Internet broken? Nah!" post. I have never seen this kind of laxness at Palingates.  And I would not allow it here, either.

One last thing, I was dismayed when you stopped linking to Palingates, yet in spite of whatever the dust-up was about, they continued to link to you. It seemed like Regina and Patrick and Kathleen had their heads on a bit straighter at the time.  They each made it clear that creating divisions was a bad thing and that we readers should just let it go.  They had the moral high ground.  Will you be re-linking Palingates now, given your glowing support for Regina in today's post?

To those posting at Palingates

Some blogs have followers, some have readers, some have commenters, and some end up forming a community.  I've been online since 1993 - through bulletin boards, chat rooms, discussion groups, and a wide variety of online discussion boards. I am not a 'joiner' type of person, but I've never before experienced such a community as Palingates became. You know, like the bar "Cheers" where everyone knows your name. I never once felt like I could not leave a comment, even though my contributions were more infrequent than others.

Yes, we talked about pets, illnesses, families, hopes and dreams and upcoming travels, disappointments, grief, and yes, even joys. That did make up a fair part of the total commentary on any given post. At the same time, people contributed freely of their time (and money to subscribe to databases) to provide links, documents, and images to further the understanding of a particular topic relating to 'something Palin.'  Maybe it was a bit much for some people to understand our embracing MrsGunka for instance, or Sleuth's missing dog. Who but the heartless would begrudge this kind of human contact, though?

Some folks used rude words, but no more than I have in my own mind. Some folks were suspicious (this was rare, though) of others who honestly did sound like trolls.  Some folks were tireless in their efforts to promote Palingates far and wide, and Palingates was the better for it. Some folks shyly introduced themselves and were welcomed. Some folks strayed off-topic frequently, but it never vexed me.  Instead, it showed me that some folks have a much larger heart and far greater generosity of spirit than I've allowed myself.  Daily I was refreshed in my own humanity.  Daily I was challenged to dig into the topics du jour. Daily I was amazed at the prolific number of angles that were addressed and investigated.

So .. to those posting at Palingates, I salute you all.  The rough and the smooth.  The raunchy and the gracious. The caring and the self-correcting.  May we find a way through the current upheaval to more firmly knit this community.

To Palingates' owner

Regina, I imagine you have gathered from the few comments I made today that I am very distressed about the way this all came down. The last thing I ever expected from Palingates was that I would read about a rather major shake-up in contributors from a post on Immoral Minority.

I have to chuckle—as Patrick pointed out recently, mine was the first comment on the new Palingates blog. And what I'm left thinking here is, "this was a failure to communicate," as the root of the recent developments. Look, it is no small feat, as I'm sure you know, to gain so much of a following to a simple blog. I can't maintain that kind of effort here, not even. And I also do not know internal history.  Let's just say that I respect you, and Patrick and Kathleen all equally, and I am immensely appreciative of the work each of you has donated to a cause not as close to home as it is to us U.S. citizens.

Had I been in a similar situation, would I have acted as you did?  I do not know. I do think, had you handled this with a bit more aplomb, the bomb that went off with today's Brace yourselves post could have been defused.

And finally, to Patrick and Kathleen

Both of you have my profound admiration and respect. It is not common that a citizen of another country recognizes a threat such as the one that Sarah Palin might pose not only to America but to the world, much less take significant action to insure that this dominionist empty-head has her ambitions curtailed. I saw your vigor and drive long ago and was immensely delighted that you opened up the discussion about Babygate in Team Truther when our revered Alaskan blogs refused to touch it.

I have been a supporter, both in word and in financial contributions, and I will continue to be so. If it is indeed true that you will be launching your own blog, know that I will be there for the inaugural post.  My best wishes to both of you, and my deep gratitude for your persistence.

The Myth That Political Rhetoric Is Harmless

Sarah Palin opines, in her most recent video from an undisclosed location,

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently.

I like the part about "apparently apolitical," which must have been inserted to give her some wiggle room in case inconvenient facts emerge about what influenced the shooter's actions. Even so, she apparently didn't notice that the gunman specifically targeted a politician who just happened to be a Democratic congresswoman in the middle of performing her congressional duties. Since the accused had purchased his gun over a month ago, and no doubt ran across many other people in the time between November 30, 2010 and January 8, 2011, it's reasonable to assume his first target was carefully chosen precisely because she was political.  Nice try, Sarah.

Mrs. Palin goes on to dissemble,

We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.

Let's face it, nobody I know conflates 'taking up arms' with voting. And if there should be any doubt about the meaning of "Don't retreat, instead RELOAD"—the words she used in her Tweet to point to the now-infamous crosshairs map— may I present this image brought to you by "Second Amendment Task Force:"

I don't think about voting when I see this...

Mrs. Palin's overarching concerns in this incompetently-timed and self-obsessed video are (1) for her own potential culpability in the massacre and then (2) for any dampers that may be placed on her free speech as a result of the tragedy. To mitigate the first concern, she rigorously insists that any fault must lie clearly, and only, on the perpetrator—accountability, personal responsibility, and all that. Unfortunately, she is entirely unpracticed in this herself.

To stave off the second concern, she turns to her oft-used attack mode:

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Who is she talking about here, though, "those who embrace evil and call it good?" Is she calling me evil because I am blogging for cooling down the rhetoric?  Who is so intolerant that they would seek to "muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults?"  The catchphrases and Facebook rants and hostile imagery linked to self-righteous Sarah are real, not imagined. The very language she uses against her perceived opponents here is exceedingly hostile and supercilious.

Can't someone hand her a mirror and make her really see?

That paragraph above is quintessential Sarah Palin. I can think of several occasions where she has shrilly decried imagined insults, and several more where she along with members of her adoring flock have tried to deter others from speaking out about her; they cry foul and assist her in playing the victim.  I can think of only a few people, none of whom are ever mentioned as a candidate for the U.S. presidency, who are as intolerant of those holding a different opinion than the once-upon-a-time-governor-who-quit has proven to be.

Mrs. Palin's very good buddy Glenn Beck is on the record for inciting unhinged people to do violent things. David Brock's "A Message to Sarah Palin" is a superb accounting of Beck's accountability thanks to his hate-filled rhetoric. Daily radio show or not, Mrs. Palin is in the same camp and of the same ilk as Beck.  She still "stands with" him.

It is little wonder that she did her self-serving causes no good with the January 12, 2011 "blood libel" poor-me video. Now, if she would just quietly slink off to a remote desert cabin and stay there for a very, very long time.  She is welcome to shout her inanities at the top of her lungs as long as only lizards and cactii can hear it.

After January 8, 2011 in Arizona, What Now?

Talking heads are asking, "What was the cause of the tragedy in Arizona and how can we prevent it in the future?"

U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ

Most everyone mentions better regulating guns and banning extended ammunition clips, repairing an imperfect mental health care system, and toning down violence-inciting rhetoric and imagery.  Out of these three, what can we do right now? The issue of hate-filled speech, raised by victim Gabrielle Giffords (YouTube) herself over the past year, is the simplest to work on right now—assuming, of course, that those who spew vitriol recognize that threatening, belligerent speech does, indeed, have consequences.

We must disavow and eradicate inflammatory, bullet-riddled imagery in political speech. That was the main issue that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik raised in his initial comments to the press shortly after the mass shooting event. Isn't it credible that a manufactured climate of despair and fear, along with not-so-subtle urgings for patriotic citizens to take matters into their own hands, played a part in the Arizona massacre and assassination?

Some in the public eye are using this time for introspection, for self-examination, by looking to see where they may have contributed to the tinderbox climate.  Keith Olbermann offered a heartfelt special comment, along with others (such as Bob Schieffer) who seem to have taken this sickening incident in Tucson to heart.

Then there are those who can't seem to find enough ways to deny their own contributions to the volatile rhetoric:

Sarah Palin for example...

And Rush Limbaugh of course.

Some even double down by fomenting further hate, fear and aggression like Glenn Beck.

I'm so crushed by these events.  It's all I can do to keep from crying again and again for what could have been: a future for the innocent victims who perished, whether they were a judge or a young girl or a retiree or a Congressional staffer; freedom from devastating trauma for the injured; intervention for the apparent shooter who didn't get help when it was needed. 

It is not yet too late, though, to call out anyone who profited from creating and perpetuating the venomous political climate in which we find ourselves, in an effort to get them to stop.  It is what we can do, right now.





Recommended:

Let's Get This Straight 
from Shakesville

What the Right Gains From Poisoning Our Political Discourse and Inspiring Violence
from Alternet

Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?
from Cenk Uygur

Sarah Palin, FYI Reacting Precludes Responding

Mrs. Todd Palin, Hawaii December 2009, without makeup or hairstyling or wardrobe

For a long time quite a while ago I studied what is called the 4th Way.  Brought to the west by G.I. Gurdjieff, and transmitted by J.G. Bennett to the group who formed The Claymont Society, the teachings were designed to assist us in transforming ourselves. We learned that man could be said to have three centers: thinking (consciousness), feeling and moving (body).  These three centers each have their own brain, if you will—thus my domain name.  We also learned that we act, by and large, automatically.  We are asleep almost all of the time, even though we would say we are awake. To become what we can—and need to—become, we need to truly wake up.

Our moving brain is what allows us to drive a car and not have to pause to think before slamming on the brakes when the car in front of us suddenly stops.  We also do not have to remember to breathe, or to keep our hearts beating.  Learning how to type is great once it is automatic. Usually, this is all good, except when our feelings take over our bodies.

If we do not learn how to exert some sort of control over our feelings, our emotions run rampant. In a pique of anger or distress we can summon up enormous power that can equally help or destroy.  Where does the superhuman strength come from that allows us to lift heavy objects off a trapped loved one?  At the same time, from where does the ability or even planning to strike out at a perceived foe come?  Only when we can separate ourselves from our feelings do we have the possibility of choosing our next actions.

In our normal states our thinking brain simply serves as a storage system. We replay over and over the memories that tie in to our emotions, and more often than not, these are negative ones. Yet when we find ways to still our minds—perhaps through meditation—we can watch what the sensitive screen displays without letting any one event get caught in the instant replay. The ability to separate ourselves from this screen opens us up to new ideas, new possibilities and creative thought while giving us the possibility of true consciousness, even if briefly.

Mrs. Palin likes to proffer platitudes, but doesn't see that her own actions belie her words. This tweet by the bitter twitter is vitally important because it demonstrates that she has no idea that there is a world where people don't react, but instead, respond. She slams her famous guest, Kate, for failing to 'man up' and be a mighty meat-eating, rain- and cold-surviving matron like her.

Reacting is part and parcel of being asleep and acting automatically. We see, over and over again, how she simply reacts to things: perceived slights in particular. Life holds so much more! One needn't simply suffer from reacting which usually produces the opposite effect that one was after. If one takes the time to become aware of one's emotions, and thus rises above one's automatic thoughts and actions, one has a far better chance to guide the body (speech, gesture, dress, behavior) in a measured and positive response.

Life provides circumstances, and then we truly do have a choice of simply reacting to them (most often negatively) or taking the time to formulate a response.  I won't hold my breath waiting for Mrs. Palin to begin a study of anything, much less the 4th way. The good part is many people sense, inside themselves, that she misses the mark on even her most 'heartfelt' snipes.

[For a simple exercise of how much control we have over our bodies... try this:  hold both hands out in front of you.  Rotate your hands/arms in a clockwise direction, both of them.  Now, hold both arms so your fingertips are facing each other.  Again, try to rotate both hands in a clockwise direction... :)]

Free Bradley Manning

The US Army private who is charged with somehow obtaining hundreds of thousands of classified documents and videos has apparently been held in solitary confinement for seven months... far longer than most of the documents have even been released.

If he is indeed guilty, I do not know his motives. (How does an Army private gain access to so much classified information anyway???)  What I do know is that someone exposed a rather ugly underbelly of our nation's international relations and our illegal wars, and therefore embarrassed some high-level politicos.  It's this kind of situation that I thought Barack Obama would rectify by assuring us that his policy of transparency is fulfilled.  Instead, I hear no word from our President while this Army fellow languishes in prison as if he were already a convicted criminal.

Tonight my heart and mind goes out to Manning, and my prayers, such as they are, intone a plea for a more humane treatment of this person who may have helped to make public things that we the people should have been made aware of already.  Solitary confinement is not deserved.  Scorn should be reserved for those who would fashion a story to tell us that is not reality.  Thanks should go to anyone who risks their own personal freedom to bring the truth to us all.

Yes, there are probably times where secrecy by our state is warranted.  From what I've read and heard about the Wikileaks document dump, this is not one of those times.  The only people who have been harmed are the alleged leaker himself, and certain heads of states.  Embarrassment does not equal real harm.

Free Bradley Manning, or at least treat him like an American soldier, a human being, who has yet to be convicted of any crime.

Time to Pull the Plug on Palin

It should be clear by now that neither Republicans nor Democrats want anything more to do with Mrs. Palin.

The not-so-liberal media has avoided dealing with her most egregious failings, although of late, no less than the Kennedys, the Bushs, Karl Rove, and other right-wing luminaries have tried to spread the message:  Mrs. Palin, you don't have what it takes to run for President, much less any national political office and probably even state office.

Her reality show is struggling to get back up to its initial ratings.  Her latest book is struggling to gain wide acceptance.  Her daughter lost her bid to win DWTS, and her PAC is paying more money to her and her foreign "consultants" by far than it is to Republican or TeaParty hopefuls. Sixty-three thousand dollars (wow, that sounds like a lot to me) went to purchasing her own book so it could be machine-signed and given out as a free bonus.

Yet, the media clamors to know if Mrs. Palin is going to "run" for the highest office in the land. Every tweet or Facebook posting draws commentary as if it were something important.  It is time, no -- past time -- for our 4th estate to do their job and begin to vet this would-be candidate.

May I recommend Palingates.  Mrs. Palin's abysmal history, from when she was mayor of a village of 5000 to when she was appointed as Oil and Gas Commissioner (a job she quit) to when she was Governor (another job she quit) besieged by ethics complaints (BECAUSE SHE ACTED UNETHICALLY!), is out there for all to see.  Yet so few seem to focus on these essential flaws.  Media, start doing your job. The material is all out there, easy to find thanks to the tireless efforts of bloggers, yes bloggers, some of whom are not even American.

A Palin presidency would affect the entire world, and the world is watching ... and wondering when in hell the American media will begin to do its prescribed duty.  Vet Mrs. Palin, please, NOW.  Take note of her ties to a secessionist organization.  Take note of her fake pregnancy (pdf).  Take note of her connections to dominionism and the Seven Mountain proponents. Take note of her abysmal record of raising her own children - one an unwed mother who is likely pregnant again, another a school bus vandal, another yet a house vandal.  Take note of her legacy as half-term governor, where elders were abused, where indigenous people were abandoned, where the environment was sacrificed in the name of profits, where ethics and transparency were simply feel-good words and not guiding principles.

A majority of the media along with a sliver of America made Mrs. Palin what she is today.  I hold out no hope that her minions will wake up anytime soon, but if the media doesn't hold to its basic tenets (to report the story, not to suck up to someone for access) we will be subject to month after depressing month of shoring up someone who would give Goebbels a run for his money in another era.

Stop pretending this narcissist has anything at all to recommend her as a candidate for US president.  It's time, Time.  It's time, WashPost.  It's time, HuffPo.  It's time, NYTimes.  It's well past time actually. Pull the plug.  The country will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and we all will have a fighting chance again to stop corporations from merging with government to give us our new fascist state.

Reviewing Mrs. Palin's Qualifications for Office

It may indeed be nobler to stop exposing Mrs. (quitter) Todd Palin for the fraud she is, and stop exposing her cult-like followers for the fools they seem to be, and this thought nags at me frequently. But the laws of physics, insofar as they apply to the media-physical world, require that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Would that Mrs. Palin herself, for a time at least, cease and desist. Yet she persists, be it via Twitter, Facebook, Fox, or whatever other unassailable outlet behind which she can hide (think TLC or Harper Collins).

There would then be no need to provide a counter to her inanity, or the slavish ramblings of her bots, either, and I could go on cleaning house and planning Thanksgiving dinner for my family with only thoughts in my head of turkey and whether I have enough matching silverware for the table.


I took a rare cruise over to the C4P site and discovered a post that attempts to answer the question, "Is Sarah Palin Qualified to Be President?" They declare,

The opinion leaders sincerely want to know whether Governor Sarah Palin is "qualified" to run for president. Why else would they keep asking the question, right? So ... let's examine a few of Palin's populist credentials that stack up surprisingly well against the more conventional resumes of five recent presidents. In the second part of this series, we'll explore five additional qualifications Palin brings beyond her elected offices, appointments and volunteer work -- the real-life experience that could be pivotal in a presidential run and successful presidency. Stay tuned.

(New York Magazine has a great story on this burning question, in which they detail the three ways that fellow Republicans evade the question.  Number 1 - Avoid answering it altogether. Number 2 - Compare her experience with President Obama's. Number 3 - Answer in only the technical sense: age 35, US citizen, sure.)

The C4P post lists the top five reasons she is qualified.  Here they are, in order:

1. Ten Years in Municipal Government
2. Ten Years volunteer work in the Parent-Teacher-Association
3. Two years pro-life advocacy
4. One year as an oil and gas commissioner
5. Two and a half years governing the largest state in America

Don't all laugh at once, please. We should take a look at each of these in turn, and in so doing, revisit information we all know already but probably bears repeating.

Ten Years in Municipal Government

This refers to 4 years as a city council member and 6 years as a Mayor. Let's keep in mind that the population of Wasilla at the time was a little more than 5,000.

Time's headline read, Mayor Palin: A Rough Record.

Palin was a highly polarizing political figure who brought partisan politics and hot-button social issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest among neighbors.
(...)
Palin limited her duties further by hiring a deputy administrator to handle much of the town's day-to-day management. Her top achievement as mayor was the construction of an ice rink, a project that landed in the courts and cost the city more than expected.

The Washington Post's headline was, As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood.

Politico remarked,

Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident.

And the Washington Independent informed us about Mrs. Palin's delight at having scored Federal earmarks for the tiny town:

Wasilla City Council Informational Memorandum 99-62, prepared on June 14, 1999... outlines some of the state-funded projects that Wasilla City secured that year, including $1.2 million for storm water treatment and $605,000 for pedestrian pathways.

Then, slapped in the margin, former Mayor Sarah Palin — reformer extraordinaire — scribbled the following message: "FYI This does not include our nearly one million Dollars from the Feds for our Airport Paving Project."

In summary, Mrs. Palin made enemies, left the little city in significant debt, and actually enlisted a lobbyist to secure earmarks from the "Feds."  The picture we have is of a polarizing figure who was fiscally irresponsible, and who had to hire a city administrator to do her job, too!  Not exactly a glowing resume item.  But let's move on to the next.

Ten years volunteer work in the Parent-Teacher-Association

I am not sure where the C4P author comes up with this item or why it counts for anything, although he/she does reference the oft-proved-false "Going Rogue" as a part source. Mrs. Palin's PTA claims were checked out by Politifact at length.  They published this:

After tracking down paper records going back more than a decade, he said, they were able to confirm that Palin was a member of the Iditarod PTA for two years, during the time she served as the mayor of Wasilla.

How being a member of the PTA for any length of time is a qualification for US President still boggles my mind. Hundreds of thousands of women and men could put this on their resume, but they normally don't even if they were an officer or a pro at fundraising or event-organizing, none of which seems to be the case with Mrs. Palin.

Two years of pro-life advocacy

Yes, Mrs. Palin is unapologetically anti-choice, and bases her belief in Christian dogma - the supreme wisdom of her God who only bestows pregnancy on those who can handle it. Rape or incest? No worry. Women should not be allowed to make a choice in these situations because God knows best. Advocating a religious belief has never, in my life anyway, served to qualify someone for political office. What if a Muslim candidate listed, as a qualification, that they'd advocated for prayer rugs in the workplace for two years?  Would that boost their appeal? Or perhaps, a Mormon who advocated for polygamy? Or what about advocating for refusing blood transfusions, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

One year as an oil and gas commissioner

In truth, Mrs. Palin served for less than a year and quit this job in protest when the Alaska Department of Law ruled that she could not engage in any discussion about whether or not then (and now) AK Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich was under investigation for ethic violations. According to Alaska Daily News at the time, Mrs. Palin said,

the experience was taking the "oomph" out of her passion for government service and she decided to quit rather than becoming bitter.

Many have speculated that the job was too taxing because she didn't want to learn what was needed to do it, she didn't like commuting to the job, and that she used this incident as a way to bow out. Use the Google to verify.

Two and a half years governing the largest state in America

This item is so funny on its face.  First of all, Alaska may have the largest land mass of any state but it is 48th out of 50 states in population, with North Dakota and tiny Vermont filling in the last two slots, so touting Alaska as the "largest state in America" is a clear resume-padding statement. Alaska has a population roughly equivalent to Memphis or Boston. Its population suffers from a myriad of problems including domestic abuse, rape, alcoholism, and other substance abuse. Use the Google, there are too many reports to link.

The other aspect that is so funny is Mrs. Palin is only one of three governors in the history of the US who quit, mid-term.  The other two were Eliot Spitzer (sex scandal) and Jim McGreevy (came out of the closet). Her final words were a quote from General MacArthur,

"We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

I strongly recommend viewing (if you have not before and if you have the stomach for it) her speech on YouTube.  HuffingtonPost has the video and the transcription here.

Conclusion

If these are the top five reasons to support a Mrs. Palin run for the Presidency, all I can say is, "Good damn luck." Republicans (and major media outlets) are already back-pedaling on support and continue to do so. Democrats already know what a no-nothing piece of scolding fluff she is.  Independents are watching and waiting and probably laughing. Maybe the second part of C4P's Palin resume will have something worth bragging about.

I'm not holding my breath, and meantime I wish you all a fine Thanksgiving. May all beings be well and happy, friends.

Final Thoughts Election 2010

The Rally4Sanity was apolitical, darnit!  But also, BRAVA!!! I did not make it there, mostly because due to the fact that I honestly can't walk more than a few blocks without having one knee succumb to arthritis.  But by all that could be holy, what a fantastic gathering of you, me, and everyone who realistically is our neighbor!  I know what Keith Olbermann took issue with Jon's seemingly even-handed disparagement of cable reporting/opinion in general.  What dear Keith doesn't take into account is that he (and even my beloved Rachel Maddow) only exist thanks to the channel who deserves the "Extreme Distortion Award," Faux Nooz.

All I can think of tonight is how horrid it will be for my good friends in Nevada if Sharon Angle manages to pull off a win.  Some of them say that Harry Reid is corrupt.  You know, I think he had pressure, but not in the way some said.  For example, the previous administration grossly lied and acted on those lies, and has as of yet, to be called on those lies in a public forum.  I am only mad at Harry Reid for failing to instigate investigations and grand juries into the constitutional slaps-in-the-face that former (doofus) President Bush and his administration perpetrated.  The list is too long to note.

I've called or SMS'd all my relatives and friends about voting.  Even though I tried my best to stick a fork in their sides about voting, I still have my own doubts.  I KNOW that the 2000 election was subject to election fraud (NOT voter fraud, election fraud - those are different). So as I vote now, and prod my loved ones into the same, I have no particular confidence that the person(s) I vote for will actually have my action recorded for them.  That's abysmal. But it is what it is.  If you don't believe me, just try -- just try asking your local poll worker what exactly happens with your choices!  And then try to see if they can provide you with an uninterrupted chain of command for your vote. Anything you can verify.

Meantime, happy November 2, all.

Random Thoughts on the Eve of 2010 Elections

What is with Joe Miller's whiskers?  He's never clean shaven but that shadow never grows into a beard.

Why is it that only Teapublican people are caught being violent toward those who hold opposing political views?

If Nevada really dumps Reid for Angle, I will have to excommunicate NV from my "great states to visit" list.

Does anyone really and truly think that restoring Republican dominance in Congress will help the middle class?  Or put a damper on corporate greed and fraud?

Sarah Palin has spawned a slew of new grifters who seem to think they can improve their personal financial situation by running for office, even if they don't win: for example, O'Donnell and Miller.

Why are so many Teapublicans afraid of speaking with the press?  And don't give me that line that the media is controlled by liberals.  It sounds like they just don't want people to learn what they really want to do to our country, otherwise, why not broadcast it at every opportunity?  Same goes for Democrats, by the way.

Does anyone care that our social programs save lives, restore families, and help keep America together?

When did this extreme us vs them begin, with the "great uniter," GWBush?  That's what I think and it's only accelerated from there.

Who gave the Xtians the right to try to impose their "religious" (and yes, I quoted that word on purpose) beliefs on everyone in the country!?  You believe it, you practice it. But in the name of freedom FROM religion, don't try to legislate your beliefs and force everyone to comply.

The most brilliant move made by progressives in the last 5 years is the founding of Republicorp!  No wonder Rand Paul's mob felt like they had to stomp it.

Rachel's show in Alaska was outstanding.  Rachel is outstanding.

Jon Stewart is one in a million.

I'll still vote for Manchin, but it will be in spite of his pro-gun anti-healthcare stance.  Shame on you, Manchin.

The Pregnancy That Never Was

Before September slips away totally, I thought I'd post about a difficult topic:  proving a negative. When you find signs or evidence that someone actually DID something, you prove the positive.  The culprit can be convicted even with circumstantial evidence.  Proving a negative is much more tricky.  In this case, the negative statement is, "Sarah Palin did not give birth to the child who became her political prop during the 2008 election season."

Perhaps this is why so many in the other media have had such a hard time with the subject of Sarah's "wild ride" and its implications.  Here's what I mean.  They simply took for granted that she was the miracle mother who survived the 11-hour Dallas to Wasilla journey while leaking amniotic fluid to produce a 6lb 2oz, 5-week (at least) premature Down syndrome infant in a facility that was not even equipped to handle twins.  In order to challenge this story, one would have to prove the negative—that it never happened.

But what is missing from this story tale?  Are there not enough missing pieces to make the whole puzzle unsolvable?  Here's a partial list of what we have not seen as evidence to support this fantastic tale:

• Official or family pictures showing Mrs. Palin's normal progression through pregnancy
  -The reason?  She didn't TELL anyone, even her family, of the pregnancy.
  
• Hospital records of a live birth on the day specified (April 18, 2008)
  -Curiously, the local hospital suddenly stopped publishing birth announcements and went 'dark' in April 2008.
  
• A birth certificate
  -Mrs. Palin has claimed she provided this evidence but nobody has seen it.
  
• Medical records indicating routine pre-natal visits
  -Again, Mrs. Palin claimed she opened her medical records but nobody has seen them.
  
• Travel documents and time sheets accounting for normal pre-natal visits
  -Scrutiny of Mrs. Palin's official calendar reveals no time off or travel for such visits.
  
• Contemporaneous accounts by any patient or visitor who witnessed the birth mother arriving, remaining at, or leaving the hospital where birth occured
  -Apparently, nobody saw her at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, or they chose never to talk about it.
  
• Pictures of the birth mother in bed with child and/or being visited by family members in the hospital
  -We saw Mrs. Palin's parents with an infant identified as Trig in a single picture but not one of her with the baby, with her children, with her husband, or even with close friends and well-wishers in the hospital
  
• Contemporaneous accounts by anyone in Texas during the Governor's conference who had contact with Mrs. Palin at the hotel or at the conference itself or anyone seeing her on travel between Alaska and Texas and back (that support her state of pregnancy)
  -We only have Mrs. Palin's recounting of Governor Perry mentioning her pregnancy, but there is no supporting evidence this happened, and the Alaska Airlines statement declines to confirm her "state of pregnancy"
  
• Anecdotal evidence from anyone regarding the state of and progression of the pregnancy who may have witnessed her doctor's visits, trips to the store, interactions during the course of her government business or unofficial snapshots during public events
  -Instead of this sort of confirmation, we have legislators who were there, where Mrs. Palin was, on the job, saying she sure as heck did NOT look pregnant
  
• Baby shower pictures for showers given before birth, as is the norm
  -The only baby shower we know of was some weeks after the supposed birth, and the baby in the pictures is clearly NOT the same baby that was shown being held by Mrs. Palin's parents in a news release
  
• Evidence of any maternity outfits instead of the omnipresent long black jacket, black scoop-necked top, and black pants or skirt plus colored scarves
  -Surely a woman well-known for caring about clothing and appearance (she gets custom manicures for her toes!) would splurge and buy one or two stylish maternity outfits, but not Mrs. Palin...
  
• Baby pictures and/or stories about Trig's early treatment for Down syndrome or prematurity
  -Apparently the birth was so easy and the DS disability so trivial that Mrs. Palin never thought to talk about or write about or schedule appointments about taking care of her new "blessing from God"
  
• Correspondence from/to family members and friends or staff discussing any aspect of the pregnancy
  -Many of Mrs. Palin's e-mails requested through the FOIA were released but not one contained what would be normal information about her pregnancy except for a curious one, "How to answer questions about the pregnancy..."

There's a saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.  But in this case, the overwhelming absence of any evidence that Mrs. Palin was indeed pregnant is most telling. Surely there would be some publicly accessible documents or images that would add weight to Mrs. Palin's assertion that she was indeed pregnant with and actually gave birth to the child called Trig.

The only evidence for the positive is Mrs. Palin's own story, told and re-told and embellished and told again, plus the appearance of the mysterious Gusty photos right after Mrs. Palin's selection as the VP nominee.  That's basically it.  Is the reason there is no other evidence to support her crazy tale because it simply does not exist?

Anyone with knowledge or information regarding facts that either support or refute Mrs. Palin's "pregnant with Trig" claims:  Please contact me (find my e-mail in my profile) or better yet, send information to the secure and anonymous hotline at Palingates.blogspot.com.

If Mrs. Palin was living the simple, rustic life she espouses, none of this would be an issue.  Instead, she flaunts her celebrity status and exerts an impact on national politics whether or not she seeks to run for office.  Once she retreats (or is exposed for the extreme fraud she has perpetrated on the American people), I will stop reloading.

Nine Years On... Still No Answers

"The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

A Conspiracy By Any Other Name...

 With all due respect to two of my favorite Alaskan bloggers, and I say that sincerely, their discussion with Nicole Sandler made me grit my teeth.  I am speaking of AKM (Jeanne Devon), and Shannyn Moore. AKM is, of course, the brilliant writer behind The Mudflats, and Shannyn's got a widely-read blog, Moore Up North, and a topical daily radio show. I've corresponded with Jeanne by e-mail and called into Shannyn's show at least twice. I met them both in person, right after last year's Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh, PA. Their warmth and humor were delightful.  Their disappointment in and disagreements with the former half-term Alaska governor are well-known.

Shannyn (L) and AKM (R) at Pittsburgh Mudstock

Why teeth-gritting, though?  Here's why.  It's one thing to make a personal or political decision about whether or not to cover a particular story, and I'm talking about babygate—the pregnancy that Sarah Palin faked in order to boost her pro-life cred with evangelical Christians and parlay her thin resume into a shot to become the Vice President of these United States.  It's another to disparage, however off-handedly, those who do address, research and endeavor to cover that same story.  If you listen to the Nicole Sandler interview (in the first link of this post), you'll learn that Nicole was able to interview Jeanne and Shannyn just as the two intrepid Alaskans concluded their second Netroots Nation in Las Vegas. Nicole had recently interviewed Patrick, one of the chief authors of the Palin watchdog blog Palingates, twice: see here and here for the details. As a result of her education about the babygate topic, Nicole asked some followup questions of the Alaskan bloggers on her segment.  Their responses were, to my ear, condescending and disparaging.

When you use words like conspiracy theory and tin-foil hats in conjunction with describing why you are not writing or talking about a potential story, you trigger a response in listeners, to wit: "Watch your step here, this is la-la land!"  Both these accomplished ladies seemed to "pooh-pooh" any efforts to get to the bottom of the clearly impossible stories Mrs. Todd Palin has given concerning the birth of the child she calls her son, Trig.

Like I said, I can understand why someone would not want to touch a story that the "mainstream media" decided to let lay fallow.  One only has to read the recently released e-mails from the Journolist group to find some sort of justification for this.  Is the justification valid?  I don't happen to think so, but then, that's me, and I have a day job. My future life plans do not depend on whether or not I blog about the right topics, or the safe topics, or the approved topics.  Running for political office is not in my future.  Cozying up to Marcos Moulitsas or any other notable in the Democratic Party is not one of my goals.

Let's face it. though.  Labels have meaning to people.  Label something a conspiracy theory and red flags shoot up everywhere.  BEWARE, BEWARE!

So fine, don't touch the story, but don't label it in such a way that I, and many of my blogging and commenting friends are made out to be kooks.  It's obvious from some of the details that AKM and Shannyn provided during the interview with Nicole that they are not very well read on the subject of babygate.  There is now a mountain of detailed evidence that makes it clear why not one of us, those who did choose to follow this story, have been threatened with a lawsuit for claiming that Mrs. Todd Palin defrauded the country with her impossible Wild Ride tale and imagined magical birth of Trig.  It is because it is NOT TRUE.

For an excellent overview/summary, I implore you to view these newly released videos:

---

Videos are courtesy of lidia17 who published them at Palingates, and summarize the indisputable evidence that disproves the assertion that Mrs. Todd Palin was actually ever pregnant with the child she claims as her own son, Trig.

Comment of the Day

This, one of 55 comments as of now, appears under a Politico story about GOP House members rejecting a plan to help 9/11 responders who still suffer from chronic illness as a result of their rescue and cleanup efforts:

Why should I werk for others to sit on their behinds pretending to be sick years after an event? Can they prove they were their? I think not. I cant wait for Nov so we can take back our contry from freeloaders and illigals. We need more real Amercans in charge not Socialists who want a free ride paid by my hard eared money.

Posted By: Sarah4Pres2012 | July 29, 2010 at 09:04 PM

It has to be a put-on, doesn't it? Either way, it's the best comment I've read all day.  :)

Activision-Blizzard, Privacy and Me

If you've read the "about me" you will have learned that one of my interests is gaming.  In particular, for the last several years, I've devoted some of my anonymous time on the 'net to Blizzard's wildly popular World of Warcraft game.  This is an MMORPG -- massive multiplayer online role playing game, for those who don't know the acronym.

Gathering herbs in World of Warcraft, Burning Crusade

Activision merged with Blizzard some months ago. Since then, the powers that be at Activision-Blizzard have veered off onto a path they must think will increase their revenue.  It all started with Battle.net, an entity established to register players who participate in the MMO aspect of Blizzard's games.  If you wanted to test your skills against someone else on the other side of town or the continent or even the ocean, you could play Starcraft or Diablo (which are single player games too) by logging in to Battle.net and competing online.   World of Warcraft (WoW) players found, shortly after the Battle.net entity was upgraded, that in order to continue their adventures in the world of Azeroth (WoW's fantasy world), they too had to have a Battle.net ID.

Fine, but, the next step in the still-unrevealed plan was to institute something called Real ID in the WoW game.  What this new coding allowed: players could designate other people as real life friends and thus, see and communicate with all the characters their friends played on any Blizzard game, and be seen and contacted by them as well.  It went further -- friends of friends could also see the real name of anyone who made a neighbor or relative a Real ID friend.  A good friend that I know and trust in real life is one thing, but I do not know who he has friended!

Sentinel Hill at night

 The next step was announced a week ago.  Blizzard would, beginning with its release of a new 3-part Starcraft expansion require anyone who posted on the forums to reveal their real name attached to any forum post they made.  They intended to require this same privacy disclosure for anyone wanting to post on the official Blizzard WoW forums as of the release of the latest upcoming expansion named Cataclysm.  The excuse given was to force the forum trolls into the light… and what, shame them into not posting their garbage?

As a result of the announcement, several thousand players expressed their astonishment, dismay, and rejection of this idea in a huge thread -- nearly 2,500 pages and nearly 50,000 posts.  Most everyone said No - as did I. 

For background, I have respected Blizzard for a dozen years or more.  One reason is they have always made a Mac version of their games, and I refuse to buy a PC just so I can game.  Another reason is their products have been great!  Yet another reason is they have always been relatively responsive to their customer base.  I played the original Warcraft series, the Diablo series and the Starcraft series.  I own collector's editions of the original WoW game and the first two expansions.  I played in the original WoW beta back in 2004.  I have several characters at max level (currently 80), who are fully trained in their professions.  Want a jewelcrafter, blacksmith, alchemist, inscriber, tailor, enchanter, engineer, or leatherworker who can craft any item possible?  I've got one.  Most of my characters are also fully skilled in the lesser professions of cooking, fishing and first aid.

Giving up my legacy characters and the hundreds of hours I've put into their development would be a bitter pill to swallow.  Nevertheless, I cancelled my automatic account subscription as a result of intuiting where Activision-Blizzard was going with their new business plan.  They have deals with Facebook and even Microsoft.  You have to read the updated TOS, EULA, and the Battle.net Terms of Use darn near daily to catch these significant changes.  Players are now subject to in-game advertising.  It was one thing to see vanity pets representative of other Blizzard games.  But who wants to see the Windows 7 logo (with the blue background) temporarily floating in the sky over Azeroth?  Who wants to have to write on someone's Facebook wall to earn an achievement in game?  I'm not saying this will happen, but I can't believe it's too far off the mark.

Fourth of July Fireworks outside Ironforge

According to Bobby Kotick, mover behind Activision and killer of Infinity Ward, WoW players and Facebook facers can be of mutual benefit to each other.  In other words, he would like to parlay Blizzard's 11 million subscribers into Facebook page holders and along the way get Facebook holders buying and playing WoW, and targeting advertising to both groups along the way.  What he doesn't get is that never the twain shall meet.  Social networking is not what an MMORPG is about, and vice versa. 

I can't speak for everyone who plays WoW, but I will assert, with as much might as I can muster, that I do NOT play wow to network socially.  I play WoW to enjoy a pastime that my non-gamer family and non-gamer friends and non-gamer co-workers don't know about and cannot begin to appreciate.  My sister and my fellow employees don't want to know the names of my characters across all the games and even if they did, I don't care to share that information with them.  I don't necessarily want my closest friends to know that I've started a brand new character on a different server just so I can immerse myself in the role-playing aspect of the game without interruption.

Death Knights can be beautiful, and they can walk on water too

The good news is Blizzard's co-founder Mike Morhaime has stated that they will not "at this time" proceed with insisting that we use a real name when posting on the forums.  I released a huge sigh of relief as a result, but am wounded by the thought that such a notion was ever considered.  I do not intend to renew my subscription or pre-order any new packages until I see where this is going.  Was it because of the huge outcry from current subscribers?  Was it because Blizzard's own employees would be put at risk with their real names visible?  Was it California's or Canada's privacy laws?  Was it the ESRB's threat to remove the friendly rating?

I post on numerous forums, and I blog under a pseudonym.  Nowhere (aside from logging in to my employer's online time sheet) is my real name a requirement.

I am Ennealogic.  I am Ennealogic here, and on Palingates, The Mudflats, Immoral Minority,  Washington Post, Huffington Post, NY Times and even on the Wall Street Journal.  I am Ennealogic on Think Progress and Gawker and Daily Kos, and countless other sites.  What I say becomes part of my cred as Ennealogic.  I do not need to be known as my real name for the same cred to apply.  A rose by any other name… I am Ennealogic when it comes to my political thoughts and opinions.  You can Google Ennealogic and find out what I think.  I do not need to reveal my real name in order to express my thoughts and opinions about anything.

I am reminded of the time when Mike Doogan outed AKM from The Mudflats.  We had this discussion then, and his excuse was that AKM had no right to express her opinion and also remain anonymous.  I will never forgive that oaf for crudely and gratuitously attempting to damage a real person who provided a real service to so many readers.  AKM's words and stories have not grown better (or worse) now that we know the name that goes with the acronym.  AKM is now and always has been a reliable, responsible, creative, investigative, and indomitable voice ringing out across the country (and the world!).  She neither lost nor gained any credibility with the outing, but she certainly lost the protection of her anonymity.  She does not speak to the question of whether her business ventures were adversely affected or her family threatened.

Flying over Northrend is an incredible experience

Those who troll forums, regardless of their variety, will still troll because it is their wont -- no matter if they post under the name Jack Fisher or Usuckmydingle.  Those who moderate forums can just as easily ban one name or IP address as another.  Those who suffer the trolls can't do anything anyway, except if a real name is provided, then look up that real name and deliver real world consequences.  Is that what Activision-Blizzard intended?  Did they really want their decent, mature, thoughtful posters to gather up torches and pitchforks and clamor outside the apartment (or basement or hovel) of a troll?  And do what, exactly?

Anyway -- my recent absence from all things politics and Sarah Palin in particular is a result of time spent opposing this recent scheme brought to us by yet one more corporatist who thinks selling customer identities is the path to even more financial rewards. 

I have one thing to say in closing:  measure carefully any request/demand to surrender privacy.  Make sure that you can trust those who ask or require it, and make sure that such disclosure is indeed warranted and needed.  In the case of Activision-Blizzard, nobody needs to know that my character name belongs to my real name.  Nobody but those who bill my credit card.  And if they insist on linking that real information with my avatar and character names, I will surely turn my back on their games.  It will pain me immensely to do so, but I will not abide by such a violation of trust.  They promised me they would keep my personal information inviolate.  I expect no less.