The Obama WH, Twitter, And Right Wing Pity Party Antics

The Modern American Right doesn't seem to understand that social networking is just that - social networking. You see someone or something you find interesting, you comment on it, link to it, remix it with some "keyboard cat", or simply just ignore it. And the one element that really sticks in their craw is that responding to them is apparently tantamount to taking a greasy, soft-serve, shit on the American Flag and then wiping your ass with no less than four pages of King James "scripture".

You think I'm kidding? Check these out:

When the White House named Jesse Lee as its Director of Progressive Media and Online Response to rebut criticisms on social-networking media, some people argued that the Obama administration had taken a big step toward becoming Big Brother. At the time, I argued that this was nonsense, and that the White House had a right to respond to criticism — but that Lee’s job was a task better left to the DNC, which traditionally served the role of political response. Instead of looking hip and timely, attacking Twitter users would make the Obama administration look petty and thin-skinned, and would diminish the seriousness and dignity of the Presidency. Punching below one’s weight is a strategy that never pays off.

Little did I know just how far below their weight the White House would punch. Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey analyzes Lee’s feed and discovers that 15% of all his rebuttals in the month since he took the job have been directed at one user, and it’s not Jake Tapper, Bret Baier, Chuck Todd, or even Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Instead, Lee has spent almost one-sixth of his twitter time rebutting … Kevin Eder.

President Obama's director of progressive media is obsessed with one particular conservative provocateur. Jesse Lee's duties at the White House include "online response" - and there has been no shortage of responses to one person who routinely communicates with him on Twitter.

Of the 267 tweets written by Lee in just over a month, a stunning 40 of them have been directed at Kevin Eder, a prolific Twitter user with more than 83,000 tweets to his credit. That means 15 percent of Lee's tweets - from an official White House account no less - have been with Eder.

One such example happened last week in a dispute over the budget.

Eder posted this tweet: "Hmm ... it can't be true that @SenateDems haven't passed a budget in 790 days and the only plan Obama has is a speech. Right, @jesseclee44?"

To which Lee responded: "@keder @SenateDems Plan is keep negotiating w/ Rs & Ds, not default & trash economy, not voucherize Medicare to fund more tax cuts for rich."

Lee's obsession has impressed Eder, even if he's a bit baffled by the White House's decision to engage with him so aggressively. (Obama to meet with congressional leadership to discuss debt ceiling)

The later screed is from none-other than a favorite "source" of Fox"Nation", the DailyCaller - the fringe Right online publication of none other than Tucker Carlson.

The source of the "story" aside, it's interesting to note that both Fox and Ed Morrissey are simultaneously panting Kevin Eder ( @keder as both a "no one" and a "powerhouse socio-political giant" all at once. After all, they have to keep their bases covered once they realize that this hack that happens to have internet access really isn't as bright as he boasts to be.

I've have had a few and witnessed many Twitter altercations with him before, so I can attest to his rank amateur status on several issues. But we'll save the fun stuff for later.

The question stands, really, as such: should Jesse Lee respond to or even marginally "call out" the obvious "trolling tactics" of a kid that displays about as much talking-point skill as Bernie Goldberg? I would actually offer yes, considering how the Modern American Right are want to "educate" the Left on their followers. What's good for the goose, you know.........

This, like a plurality of stories propagated by the likes of Morrissey and Fox"News", comes down to the concept of "framing". If the Obama White House doesn't respond, they are therefore scared of one random kid from the D.C. area. If they respond, they are "bullying". And the Left should respond to neither allegation, but focus purely on the so-called "merit" of what is presented to them - which they have.

As I tweeted to Eder earlier today, I'm starting to wonder when his first appearance as an "analyst" on Fox"News" will happen. After all, they do love to employ the unqualified.

The Bonnaroo List

As the 4 of you that actually read this space will know, I have been venturing to the Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival since 2006.

In honor of the upcoming event this summer - and Second Tier Tickets are going on sale soon - I am going to be doing a recurring series of musical posts regarding those who will appear at the Manchester, Tennessee event this year.

As the clues are being released starting this week, I'd like to post what I feel are the best answers.

First up - and I hope this is correct, based on the first clue - David Bowie:

The clip below is Halo Spaceboy, from the Bowie/NIN tour back in '95.



The next clue dropped in less than one hour.

Brain Leakage

The completely unchecked hubris being vomited from Sarah Palin is truly something to marvel at.

Here ghostwriter took to Twitter immediately after the WikiLeaks document drop and made Palin look like a fool in under 140 characters:

Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book "America by Heart" from being leaked,but US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?

Too bad that that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. Not because it's equating Palin's hardbound idiotic drivel with "classified" cables from world embassies is laughably preposterous - and it is - but because excerpts from her book WERE leaked and they were still available across many corners of the internet right up to when the book was released.

But Palin's "tweet" was only the start, as her writing staff decided to pen a longer op-ed piece that took the standard route of over-simplification that Palin and her mouth-agape followers crave.

We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called WikiLeaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration's incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a "journalist," any more than the "editor" of Al Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a "journalist." He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What, if any, diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt WikiLeaks' technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber-tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle WikiLeaks? Were individuals working for WikiLeaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn't they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

Exit question: Since when are conservatives concerned with the integrity of diplomacy? They don't seem to understand how it works, or feel the need to equate diplomacy with coddling to terrorists.

Operational Ineptitude

Found this over at Cesca's Awesome Blog and thought I would elaborate on it.

This is how Sarah Palin approaches healthy eating for school children:

Hmm...may bring cookies to my PA school speech tmrw to make a pt "PA mulls ban on cake/cookies/candy@ school parties..

Because nothing says you support nutritious foods for school children like dosing them up with baskets full of Star Crunches and Swiss Cake Rolls. Maybe for drug awareness week she would have brought an ounce of China White and showed the kids how to "chase the dragon".

The modern conservative movement is so eager to degrade Michelle Obama's healthy kids initiative that they are willing to go to any extreme.

Typical.

Sarah Palin : Professional Liar

There's not much else to do when someone like Sarah Palin blatantly lies like this except roll the tape.

CQ Politics - c'mon guys, get it right. No one told Christine to only speak to FOX news. C'mon now, print truth. Thanks very much.

I suppose the 100+ others that "retweeted" the lie should also watch this. The contested quote starts around 2:50.



I'm trying to figure out how exactly you spin something like this. Chances are she and all her mouth-agape followers will simply ignore it and focus more on defending Christine O'Donnell.

Insubordinate And Disrepecting Chain Of Command

I've been in a rather lengthy exchange with a person on Twitter that goes by the name @melsite1 regarding General Stanley McCrystal's blatant insubordination. To wit, Mr. Melsite1 thinks that I'm misusing the definition of the word "insubordinate". To that end, I clearly stated that he is completely and utterly full of it.

After all, just ask CPAC blogger hero Ed Morrissey who boldly used the tagline of a blog post today to highlight McCrystal's actions as insubordinate.

From The Washington Post on down to The Freepers, the reality of what McCrystal did is being reported.

However, there are those that claim that McCrystal's insubordination is excusable, since it was all Obama's fault

The real trouble is that Obama never resolved the dispute within his administration over Afghanistan strategy. With the backing of Gates and the Pentagon’s top generals, McChrystal sought to apply to Afghanistan the counterinsurgency approach that succeeded over the last three years in Iraq, an option requiring the deployment of tens of thousands more troops. Biden opposed sending most of the reinforcements and argued for a “counterterrorism plus” strategy centered on preventing al-Qaeda from establishing another refuge.

In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise. He approved most of the additional troops that McChrystal sought, but attached the July, 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawals. Since then both sides have been arguing their cases, in private and in public, to the press and to members of Congress.

McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility.

Ah, the "dithering" talking point resurfaces. I'll get more into that later.

In the end, the reality of the word "insubordinate" depends largely on the situation at hand and who is involved. Clearly, McCrystal is guilty and should either resign or be fired immediately. I'm of the opinion, though he had to tow the Bush line that "the surge worked" in Iraq, that Petraeus could easily step into Gen. McCrystal's shoes and at least get things marginally squared away in Afghanistan before the scheduled draw-down next summer.

Make no mistake about it, we started losing in Afghanistan the moment that W. got us into a family vendetta in Iraq, and it hasn't improved since. Not only that, but Sec. Of Defense Robert Gates has sacked members of the military for lesser offenses than what McCrystal finds himself embroiled in. So if there isn't some serious restructuring going on in the next few weeks, I'm really going to be disappointed in this administration. Not from the standpoint of the conflict in Afghanistan, but of their desire to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats. That just needs to end so we can get the real heavy lifting taken care of.

McCrystal should be out - no question. After all, if he's got such a low opinion of the Obama administration, I'm sure that Fox"News" would gladly hire him on as a military strategist. Isn't Ollie around retirement age? After all, they do love military men that hate Barack Obama.

Just sayin.

Tweet Analysis

Sarah Palin ( or her ghostwriter ) is making even less sense now.

Her latest entry into the "tweet machine" is something that I think needs some analysis.

Gulf: learn from Alaska's lesson w/foreign oil co's: don't naively trust- VERIFY. Livelihood affected by spill?Don't sign away remedy rights

There's the obligatory nod to Reagan ( the whole "trust but verify" schtick ) and her sad homage to Alaska and what appears to be a healthy dose of boasting about how she "took on the evil oil companies" when she was governor. But what does she mean by not signing away "remedy rights"?

I'm guessing that she's not referring to settlement agreements that were recently stopped by an Alabama attorney general, as those documents were designed to prevent people from filing suit against BP for the oil spill and how it will likely affect coastal regions. After all, conservatives don't look kindly upon the average American suing corporations.

What, precisely, does she think is a "remedy" for this anyway? I'm honestly thinking that this is just more glittering generalities from the conservative spokesmodel. But here's something that must have slipped Palin's mind before she ( or that other person that operates the keyboard in her place ) posted her tweet - Todd Palin worked for BP for almost 20 years.

Skirting The Edge Of Racism

I was just called a racist jackass for correctly stating there were racial undertones to this piece I saw posted on Twitter.

The film Watermelon Man was about a white man insensitive to blacks who woke up one day to discover that he was turning black.

While unsurprising to many, it is ironic that America is waking up today to find out that the half-black man in the White House is nothing like the post-racial politician he made himself up to be during the 2008 campaign.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

And now, he gets to warm up the bus before running over his National Security Adviser for an anti-semitic joke, assuming the media doesn't grant him yet one more affirmative action pass. Well, at least he gets to sit in the driver's seat and not in the back. I suppose there's some progress in that!

After the speech, two participants suggested, in private conversations with the Forward, that Jones’ joke might have been inappropriate. After all, making jokes about greedy Jewish merchants can be seen at times as insensitive.

A prominent think-tank source who attended the event said the joke was “wrong in so many levels” and that it “demonstrated a lack of sensitivity.” The source also asked: “Can you imagine him telling a black joke at an event of African Americans?”

It's not difficult to see the race bating nature of this post as well as the racial undertones in the title alone - The Watermelon Man?

So, in response - and certainly not of a reflexive nature - I pointed out the racial nature of the post and when confronted with the "I know you are but what am I" ( The Pee-Wee Herman response ) I offered up the challenge for the self ascribed
conservativecowgirl to provide conclusive proof that I am, in point of fact, this "racist jackass".

Not that it bothers me in the least, as I've had just about any and every label leveled at me since I started blogging. But let's focus on Dan Riehl's post.

For starters, not only is the title of the film used indicative of one of the oldest and most widely recognized racial stereotypes, but the inference that Dan makes that America is waking up to see that Obama is "much blacker than we had first realized" is just as disgusting and makes no headway in the conservative chant of late that there is "no racism" within the movement.

Dan is likely echoing Fox"Nation" when comparing how he feels America should look at Obama while he makes a call to minorities ( and women ) to come together not only to better themselves but their country as well with the upcoming elections.

It appears that it was Dan's intent to get someone "non-white" to respond to this. I, however, am not, but could easily see that this wasn't some idle comment within the broader context of the piece.

Dan follows with this with a two-fer - the obligatory "affirmative action" jab coupled with a "hey buddy, now you can sit up front" schtick. Not only that, but Riehl likely realizes that conservatives have convinced themselves that Obama care little to nothing about Isreal ( as evidenced by the continuing slams against Obama and his relationships with Netanyahu ) and his inference that Obama is going to somehow prove he is pro-Isreal by tossing his National Security advisor under the proverbial "bus".

Regardless of what Obama does, whether he chastises that man for the poor and uncalled for slur or he does nothing, conservatives will either claim that he's willing to kill his own kind or - as is now - that he cares nothing about Isreal. It's a lose/lose.

Dan concludes his piece with a standard point of view that conservatives like to use - the "what if" option. It's much better to never respond to such claims simply because they never happened. But that doesn't mean that it's already happened in the mind of a conservative willing to use racial animus to make themselves look clever amongst their peers.

In the end, I'm not surprised at all by this, nor am I surprised by the response that my clear and honest statement brought. It's a sign of a rank amateur to use racially charged and divisive rhetoric within a piece, and just patently ignorant to use it in one that has no broader context other than to get as close to using the dreaded "n-bomb" without coming out and saying it.

Beck Follower Threatens Twitter User

This was a developing issue over the weekend.

A Twitter user and anti-Beck activist ( @stopbeck ) was threatened with violence because of his tireless crusade to expose Glenn Beck for the hatemongerer he is and to persuade all those that advertised on his program remove their support. So far, his actions have brought a great deal of success.

Laffy at The Political Carnival has more.

The level of hostility and hatred is out of hand. It started to rev up over the summer with the gun-toting, screaming, out of control Tea Tantrumers at town hall meetings. It has crescendoed ever since.

How can there be any expectation of achieving any sort of rational communication when wingnuts such as @vatopdog persist in drowning out civil discourse with outright threats, slurs, bigotry, hate speech, racism, and extremism?

Here is a picture of the man known as @vatopdog, Larry Herrin. His MySpace page shows that he is from Virginia. There are no updates, blogs, or comments on his page, but there is a link to a web-cam that doesn't seem to be working right now.

I'm doing a little more digging on this one, but it looks like there's sparse information on his out there. Also, he has his Twitter timeline protected, so you will have to add him to your follow list to check out his inane ramblings - something I wouldn't exactly recommend.

Poor Andy's Fussy.

I've had a minor altercation with Andrew Breitbart before on Twitter - questioning him about the time-code dates on the ACORN videos and why, if James O'Keefe is such a "professional", why he couldn't work a basic function on a camera - and he's just as pathetic on there as he is on television.

But have you read any of his timeline since it was reveal that his baby boy O'Keefe has a problem with black people and gays? Talk about a meltdown - this one is epic.

He Can Say That Because Obama's Black

The Tea-baggers are known for many things now. For one, they have a horrendous grasp of the English language which is allegedly their native tongue. Their knowledge of the Constitution is limited to approximately three lines that they memorized in grade school. And their ability to make racist statements while claiming there is no racism among any of their followers.

The later is not meant to suggest that ALL Tea-baggers are racists, but there is more than enough to go around. From the more blatant to the more nuanced and subtle, racism is still a plague that we must deal with no matter how many conservatives claim that it doesn’t exist or that it is actually the Liberals/Progressives that are the racists.

One way that conservatives, Tea-bagger or not, are able to explain away their racist context is to use terminology that is vague or that has lost much of its racist connotations over the years. That’s how people like Mike Parry get away with it and have conservatives rushing to their defense.

District 26 Senate candidate Mike Parry is under fire for some messages that he allegedly posted on Twitter and has since “scrubbed.” In one, the Republican contender allegedly referred to President Barack Obama as a “power hungry arrogant black man” and in another linked Democrats with pedophiles…..In another instance, Parry wrote, “read the exclusive on Mr O in Newsweek. He is a Power Hungry Arrogant Black Man.”

When asked about the posts, Parry said that he had not seen MPP's site nor heard about the allegations because he had been too busy.

When asked if he had written those statements, Parry admitted he had posted the statement about Obama.

“I know specifically about what you're talking about - the tweet that I had sent using my opinion and fact,” Parry said. “My opinion is that our president is arrogant and angry. The fact is that he is a black man. Now if the Democratic Party and the liberals want to take my opinion and the fact and mix it together and use it to bring a bad light about me and keep them away from discussing the real issues they can do that all they want. They're grasping for straws.”

Parry actually makes my point for me in one respect. Conservatives think that since Obama is black that they have carde blanche to use his race as part of their arguments against him. Couple that with the “angry” adjective and we are thrust headlong into that bygone generation where all black men of any educational status were “uppity” as well.

No one is saying that Parry isn’t able to disagree with Barack Obama, but he certainly lacks the ability to do so with any facts. And his opinion of Obama is obviously limited to what his skin color means to him and not his policy ideals.

Adventures In Tweeting: Pt II : Losing Their Religion

I find religion, whether organized or not, to be quite fascinating. As a Christian myself since the age of 9, I have sought to learn as much as I can about the Bible, about other religions, and about how people in America practice it. I enjoy conversations with atheists, agnostics, catholics, Jews, Buddhists, anyone that sees religion from a differing perspective. But when fervent religion dogma collides with politics, the conversation gets a little tilted.

Last night on Twitter, someone by the name of Unalienable Rights claimed that they would be forced to chose between God and the Federal Government is healthcare reform passed. Moreover, their bio on Twitter reads:

My God said abortion is murder. The gov'mnt plans 2 force me 2 fund abortion, thus making me complicit, it violates my 1st amendment rights!

Not only is this a preposterous statement to make, but it leads one to ask why they think their 1st amendment right has been violated. Are they exercising that very right with their Twitter account? Also, if they have health insurance through a private company and that company has abortion coverage as an option - as many insurance companies do - do they feel this same complicity by giving that company profit? And what of the Stupak, Hyde, and Nelson language in healthcare reform that assures no public funds will be used to pay for abortions? Are they forgetting this as well?

But back to this notion that they will not be able to practice their religion is healthcare reform passes. It's a rather unique and interesting concept within the context of the anti-reform movement. So why do they think this way? Religion is based on faith, not fact. So is this person claiming that their faith that they have clung to for years and years will suddenly evaporate once Barack Obama signs his name to the bill? Or is it that they believe that they will be barred from attending religious services?

To read their Twitter timeline is to not get a real sense that they understand what they are attempting to espouse.

Is there this hidden language in healthcare reform that says "by accepting insurance through this reform you are hereby from this day forward denying God"? Absolutely not. Religion, and the practice thereof, is a choice, a free choice. Freedom of choice, of speech, of religion, is still here and will always be here no matter what reforms are put forward.

Adventures In Tweeting Pt I : Black Like Me

The racial component in socio-political discourse has been amplified or minimized for a number of reasons. For the most part, liberals/progressives find themselves speaking about race in politics and society as a direct result of statements made by conservatives. A good example would be O'Reilly's shock and awe that a black restaurant in Harlem was just as pleasant as any other eatery that he may find himself in. Though he continues to deny that he ever said this, insisting his context had been distorted, it is a perfect example of conservatives using race as a quantifier for their belief structure.

Conservatives too often use race in socio-political discourse in order to show that those within a minority are often inferior, that they have a hidden agenda that is ultimately anti-American, or to bait those with whom they disagree with. It’s become more prevalent because of the fact that Obama is black. In their minds they think that because we now have a black President that they are free to use racially charged language. They seem to be operating under the assumption that racial animus no longer exists, so their words – no matter how harmful – are validated.

Recently I responded to a tweet posted by someone using the AlinskyDefeater name:



And even though this “connection” between Ayers and Obama was completely overblown from the jump, our intrepid AlinskyDefeater was hell-bent on convince his followers that there was some secret plot that Obama was about to unfold upon us all.

After responding that this link between Ayers and Obama had been seriously distorted, that a few context-shredded lines from a fire-and-brimstone preacher don’t reveal to us that Obama is some evil force that is out to destroy America, I was labeled a racist:






But it apparently wasn’t enough to show that there was absolutely no rationale that could be used to validate this claim being leveled against me. Ultimately, I was no longer just a racist, but a “black racist”:



This is where we come back to the way in which reactionary conservatives use race/racism as a central theme in many of their arguments against Obama and for conservative policies. But there was one problem that our intrepid AlinskyDefeater didn’t bank on – I’m not black.



All one has to do is take a look at my Facebook profile and it becomes quite clear that I am not black at all. So why was this person so eager to label me “black”? The answer is quite obvious.

I was defending Obama against a specious and fact free attack, so in the mind of a fringe conservative that HAS to mean that I am black. To them, this is the only possible reason that someone, that anyone, would stand up against claims that they feel are grounded in reality when all they are are poorly constructed conspiracies designed to divide along racial lines. By and large, reactionary conservatives like this person, like Limbaugh, like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly can't seem to grasp that being black isn't a disorder, isn't a state of being that means that you HAVE to act in a certain way. Conversely, simply because a person is white it doesn't mean they have to act a certain way. The problem comes in when people like AlinskyDefeator make assumptions.

Of course, this is not to say that our intrepid AlinskyDefeater is racist, but that they are sorely misinformed and should exercise at least an ounce of intellectual honesty when attempting to debate someone. However, seeing as how this person wants to “defeat” Alinsky while praising Glenn Beck for utilizing his “tactics”, I'm afraid that that’s going to be a little too much to ask.

The Dithering Bloom Of Bush/Cheney

In a recent conversation on Twitter with @AnUnlikelySaint, I pointed out that as recently as last year, Bush/Cheney did not answer a call for more troops in Afghanistan. My assertion, back up by a report in McClatchy which I blogged about yesterday, is solidified with new information coming from Admiral Micheal Mullen

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed back in a fact-checking dispute with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asserting that the Bush administration objected rejected a Pentagon request for more troops for Afghanistan last year.

Adm. Michael Mullen told a House committee Wednesday that Gen. David McKiernan, who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan between 2008 and this year, had asked for 20,000 troops for the effort but was rebuffed.

“We didn’t have them because they were pushed to Iraq,” the four-star admiral said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in response to a question from Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence. “That was the priority of the president.”

The conservative base, now faced with the reality that the Bush administration largely ignored Afghanistan in favor of attempting to nation-build in Iraq, are completley unwilling to recognize the failure that they had once claimed liberal/progressive Democrats embraced.

But while many who watched Obama's speech at West Point considered Obama's statement about troop requests and his patience on issuing another ( his first was in March - the one that Bush/Cheney ignored ) was directed at Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought it was all about him:

Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response. I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, "repeated" or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.

But there is one problem with Rumsfeld's statement, he was the Sec. of Defense when this happened - it was Robert Gates, the man that is still holds the position today. And while conservatives will attempt to use this as a "well it's not really Bush/Cheney's fault, is it" defense, the reality of the matter is that Bush/Cheney have authority over Gates just as they had authority over Rumsfeld.

In the end, this whole concept of "dithering" by Obama is a non-starter. The best decision was made with a far more solid plan than at any time during the Bush administration, who largely ignored the mission in Afghanistan.

The Climate Of Conservative Thought

Ever since the alleged "bombshell" dropped recently where emails allegedly showed that global warming was a "hoax", conservatives haven't been able to wipe clean all the drool that is literally pouring from their ever gaping maws. The only problem is that the emails that these same conservatives are having such fun referencing lack context. And as we all should know by now, conservatives context context.

Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal "Climategate." But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears.

It's people like Laura Ingraham who think that they can speak from a scientific perspective. And as glaringly obvious as her ignorance is, the fringe conservatives that have placed all their bets against the reality of global warming/climate change are willing to have their information spoon-fed to them by the likes of Ingraham

And this abject ignorance is seen readily through my attempts to converse with some of the more reactionary lot on Twitter.



The site reference by @FightTheSmears ( a rabidly twitchy Palin fanatic ) is so poorly put together that all chronology within the hacked/stolen emails is lost.

Rather than showing the true timeline of the stolen/hacked emails, one can search by keyword ( though doing that often relies on the opinions of the creators of the website ) where you are literally dropped into a sea of sentences that lack any sort of relevance without the data/information that is often referenced within.

Here's a good example:

If I click on the lying tag, there are 118 individual emails that are referenced from 1996 until 2009, often with lengthy spans of time between each email. Here's where the context part comes in.

This email is contained within the "lying" section:

From: Mike Hulme
To: "Iain Brown (UKCIP)"
Subject: Re: temporal interpolation for UKCIP scenarios
Date: Wed Sep 11 12:39:26 2002
Cc: geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,x.lu,j.turnpenny

Iain (and Geoff),
Definitive explanations are always dangerous! The reasoning behind this is as follows:
- the report only analysed and pictured seasonal and annual data (DJF,MAM, etc.) [in fact,
nearly all published maps of climate model outputs show changes in seasonal - 3-month -
averages]. This applying a uniform filter over 90 or 360 days.
- the requested datasets are at monthly time-steps. The default option for this is in
effect applying a uniform 30-day filter. [one might also conceive of weekly or daily
time-step files - e.g. changes in Week 13 for the 2050s for precip. for Medium-High or
changes for Julian day number 256 for the 2080s for Tmin for Low].
- these are all arbitrary choices of course, dictated by convention. But the important
point it seems to me is again a signal to noise issue - the shorter the time-averaging
period, the weaker the S/N ratio [i.e., we have more confidence that averaged over a year,
Tmin in the UK will increase by, say, 2.7degC for certain scenario, than that for the same
scenarios Tmin on 13 June will increase - on average - by 2.6degC and on 14 June only by
2.3degC - is this difference between 2.6 on 13 June and 2.3 on 14 June really meaningful?
No - it is most likely due to noise - natural variability].
- this reasoning suggests that as the time-averaging period decreases, one should pay less
attention to small differences between adjacent time-averaged periods, e.g. if June precip.
goes down by 10%, is the fact that July precip. goes down by 20% and August by 5% really
meaningful?
-
At 10:13 11/09/02 +0100, Iain Brown (UKCIP) wrote:

Mike,
For the UKCIP Scenarios datasets - both 98 and 02 - temporal interpolation
was applied to the raw model data in the form of a 1-2-1 filter. This had
the effect of smoothing out monthly values so that there are not as abrupt
transitions between adjacent months.
Can you provide us with the definitive explanation for the interpolation?
Some users (eg. in the recent London study) have noted that there are
differences between the maps they have derived from the data and the maps in
the UKCIP02 report.
best wishes,
Iain
-----------------------------------
Dr. Iain Brown
UK Climate Impacts Programme
12 St. Michael's St.
Oxford
OX1 2DU

From a rational perspective, it's easy to see that this discussion is dealing with complex data/maps ( neither of which are shown in the email ) that is being used as part of the study. So, I wondering exactly how many conservatives that are using these emails feel so confident that email exchanges such as this one are conclusive proof that this is all an elaborate hoax that has been perpetrated upon the entire world.

For starters, it's likely the selective nature in which conservatives are viewing the hacked/stolen email. Whereas most people will read the entire email exchange and attempt to get the facts, a conservative is likely to only read the first sentence - "Definitive explanations are always dangerous". It's an involuntary editing process within the brain of the reactionary fringe that creates the illusion that what is there isn't and what isn't there is.

And why is it that no conservatives are troubled by the very real fact that these emails were hacked/stolen? One of the loudest voices of the modern conservative movement once had a serious problem with this.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleague’s e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

Oh, that's right. Back then it was bad because it was Palin's account that was hacked. It's alright now because it's NOT Palin.

By and large, this faux controversy is a non-starter for anyone with even a marginally functioning frontal lobe. However, the very real fact that the bulk of news networks aren't covering this story is allowing people like Fox"News" to claim that they have uncovered this grand plot and that everyone else is asleep at the switch or is somehow in on the scheme.

The conspiratorial nature of the modern conservative is truly something to marvel at.

The Cost Of Conservativism

In recent discussions on Twitter with members of the teabagger movement ( you can check out my timeline @aironlater ) it has come to light that they are completely ignoring the spending of former president George W. Bush.

While this shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone paying attention, not only are they ignoring it, but that are attempting to re-write the history and context of the infamous Bush Tax Cuts and the fact that they had a cost associated with them.

here's some relevant data if you have any questions.

The consitant and laughable shrieks of "but if somebody gave you back money, how is that a cost?" tend to show just how ill-informed these people really are.

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.

The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.

The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.

But don't assume that those that still trumpet the virtues and denefits of the Bush Tax Cuts are going to actually come away from this information with any change of heart. They have far too much invested in their own self-destruction to admit that they were wrong.

The Morning After

While on Twitter last night, watching election results pour in for the 4 races that the media at large were hellbent on covering like Obama actually going to be threatened by them, it was quite interesting to attempt conversation with conservatives.

Regardless of what you said about Christie's win, Corzine's loss, or VA going right back where it was a few short years ago, you were guilty of perpetrating the most egregious spin imaginable.

But there's something that these conservatives aren't willing to recognize.

Living in one of Reddest states in all of the nation ( Kentucky ) I think I have a fairly good perspective on what went down in Virginia last night. While the elecorate in VA went for Obama last year, something that hasn't happened for a Democratic candidate since the 60s, it's not suprising that the state now has a Republican governor. It's a matter of history. Kentucky, at least in my lifetime, has never gone for a Democratic presidential candidate - save Bill Clinton in the 90s, yet we have a Democratic Governor for several years. You see the parallels now? Just because your state leadership shifts away from the previous presidential election results has absolutley no bearing on whom your state will vote for in 2012.

As far as Jersy is concerned, Christie had this one in the bag from the start, as Corzine's polling was floating between 29% and 30% for some time. The only reason that conservatives were focusing on this issue with drooling intensity was that Obama had taken such an active roll in trying to ensure Corzine remain governor of that state. It was a move that I wouldn't have made, and it does put Obama in a position to be roundly ridiculed by the Right - which they have done.

So what of th infamous NY-23 results?

while some conservatives are actually attempting to create Hoffman's loss in NY-23 as a victory for the tea-bagger set, it's actually just as embarassing ( if not more than ) Obama actively fighting for Corzine. From Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to virtually every program on Fox"News" and all corners of the conservative blogging community, Hoffman was seen as some bright and shining figure that would vindicate the fringe conservative movement and prove that third party candidate can win.

This was most certainly not the case.

The reality of NY-23s results are largely seen by people that make strict party-line votes each and every time there is an election, regardless who is on the ticket. There are Republicans that would vote for Satan, should he be on the ballot, simply so they wouldn't have to vote for a Democrat. But was there something else in play last night in New York? Were people really voting for Hoffman, or were they voting because of his endorsements? Had he actually won, what do conservaties think they would have gotten that Michelle Bachman, Steve King, and Joe Wilson can't do - dispense nothing but white noise and say no to everything.

The true historical significance that has come out of NY-23 is that a Democrat holds a seat that was warmed by Republican ass for over 100 years. So all the money, all the coverage, all the hype largely for nothing.

A main talking point amongst conservatives and even some moderate Republicans was that these three elections were to be a referendum on Obama. And while exiting polling, which can be seen as a rather unreliable metric in most instances, show that Obama was hardly the deciding factor in how people voted, yesterdays off-year elections resulted just as history would have predicted they would have. The only difference, the only game-chaninging result, was that the tea-baggers lost - again.

Breaking News: Meghan McCain Has Tits - Twitter Followers Goes Nuts

I follow lots of people on Twitter - from the average joe and jane, to businessmen, porn-stars, politicos, other bloggers, and yes, Meghan McCain. She's not always someone that I agree with and there is still that spektre of John McCain being her day, but she's still a more tolerable than say Mary Kathrine Ham and not nearly as single-minded as that Scott Baio kid from Happy Days. But when people get incensed about this pic:



Then what's really going on?

I honestly didn't recognize her at first, but realized it was here. What I didn't expect was to hear that she was suddenly branded a slut. Was it the fact that she like Warhol? Was it her pseudo-90s banana-clip hair-style? Oh, it's the boobs.

You know, for all the salivating that men in the Republican party did over Sarah Palin, of all the adoration that was showered upon her simply because of her cougarish looks, why suddenly are people enraged by Meghan McCain's sweater tigers?

Yes, she's good looking and has a great pair of baby feeders. Are Republican women not supposed to be proportionate in this way? Apparently some think so. People are quite perculiar at times in their behavior towards women that are attractive, and this is just another example of that.

It apparently got so bad that Meghan was considering deleting her Twitter account:

why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment.

If she quits, then she quits, but if she lets the puritanical ravings of a small segment of the Twitterati get to her like that, then she really needs to toughen-up. She certainly handled the Laura Ingraham dust-up better than this.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- So Beck and O'Reilly are defending themselves against White House statements that they are a wing of the Republican party. O'Reilly's tired attempts at this have become rather flacid and poorly constructed over the years, but to hear Glenn Beck talk about how the network isn't one-sided ( as has become completely and utterly clear since Obama's election ) is like watching a kid try to defend himself once his hand has been caught in the cookie jar. He even brings out toys to illustrate his point.

- What is it with has-been atheletes and washed-up actors like Scott Baio railing against Barack Obama. This is, apparently, the new way to claw your way out from complete marginalization. You should check out @thescottbaio on Twitter, the man has become the clown-prince of the washed-up child-actor set.

- Is anyone suprised to hear that Fox"Business" may be interested in scatching Lou Dobbs from CNN? He would make a fantastic edition to their staple of such "business-minded" people like Don Imus and that vaccuous chick on the bar-themed "Happy Hour" show. What sort of business reporting knowledge does Dobbs even have? None-at-all, which makes him an excellent choice. After all, he fits the Fox mold wonderfully: Birther, nativist, hypocrite, and partisan hack.

- There are days where Politico is something interesting, has stories that are marginally insightful. Then their the abject pointlessness of an article talking about how the White House has a problem with cursing. Talk about a waste of bandwidth.

Misleading The Letter Of The Law

As is to be expected, Fox"News" and various conservative blogs, message boards, and "news" sites are pushing the story of the White House gathering your "data" or your "info". And while the Presidential Records Act requires that all correspondance with the White House be archived, the way the story is being framed is that your "personal information" - not just your name and your comments that were posted - is somehow in danger.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.

If one were to simply read the lead-in, you would come away with the impression that ALL of the social networking sites are being monitored even if there is no direct correspondance with the White House.

Even the Washington Times article explains this rather poorly. The average reader might not catch the word "its" in the opening paragraph which is the only signifier that it's not the entirity of Facebook or Twitter that is being archived, but the White House's personal sections. Trust me, your MySpace pic folder where you put your emo pics and videos of that drunk kid from the party last weekend, as well as your home address, phone and social security number, are safe.

And while the spectre of identity theft is real, it is these fears within people that conservatives are hoping to stoke to a boiling point. People should worry about their own use of personal information on social networking sites rather than respond to the fearmongering of conservatives.