He discusses way to avoid the bullies, also known as trolls. Block and ignore is the best method. I even unfollow people who RT shit from the idiots into my TL. That’s good advice, but…

Then he chastises people for standing up to the fuckers. I don’t necessarily agree with that. I don’t think constantly sending them mentions or engaging them is a good tactic, but mockery? Yes. Evidence of that is how the biggest bully flipped out on us “Obsessives” (though one of us is a Pot Stirrer, not truly an Obsessive).

Bullies, I’ve noticed, tend especially to go after people on Twitter who have tried to support others whom they have seen being bullied, by calling out the bullying. Whatever the reason, there is no justification to bully or abuse anyone for anything that is said on Twitter, not even if the intention is to dish out more of the same to a bully or abuser.

I don’t know if that’s really an effective way to get them to back off, but it is a way to refocus their energy off people who really can’t stand up for themselves. I mean, do I really care that some anonymous nobody put my name in a list on his website? No, not really. I think it’s freaking hilarious. It doesn’t hurt me in any way that I can think of. People like me, who don’t give a flying monkey’s ass about what idiots on Twitter write about her, are better targets than those who are genuinely upset. I fight back in a way that drives them mad– with laughter and derision.

Another thing he mentions is that he doesn’t associate with people who don’t use their real names and pictures. That’s not fair. The internet has been a place where anonymous and pseudonymous people have come together to discuss, openly, many different things that wouldn’t be safe for them to discuss were they to use their real name. For example: paganism. In small towns, people still view that as equal to satanism and kids get hurt. Another example is radical politics. People using their real names have been fired from their jobs for posting their real opinions online. Pseudonyms help protect them from real world consequences.

Occasionally, when something attracts my attention, I pause to check those who are following me by looking at their followers, or the tone and nature of their tweeting, and if I do not like what I find, I do not hesitate to block them, even through they have never addressed me. In addition, I follow only people and organizations when (1) they have revealed their true identity; or (2) I know their true identity notwithstanding their use of a pseudonymous nom de Twitter.

Who’s to say if someone is using their “real name” and picture anyway? I could say my real name is Jennifer Smith, but that doesn’t make it so. It sounds like a real name, but it’s not my real name. But, according to Mr. Dean, using that name gives me more validity. I can still behave in an abhorrent manner with that name, because it’s not my real name.

There are people online who know my real name but still call my JJ or Jinx or Jinxi. Why? Because that’s how I’m known. That’s my identity. I don’t use any other name online. I’ve been using it for a long time; it’s how people recognize me. Does that make my opinion less valid? Of course not. I’m also not a bully (though in this piece I could be considered a bully for calling out idiocy).

Consider people who attack others on a regular basis on Twitter. Some of them use what appears to be a real name. One of them is, apparently, an attorney and uses her real name. Another believes herself to be a journalist, though her #TwitterGravitas only allows her to enable her BFF by calling him the poor victim and everyone else evil mean poo-poo heads. Does that make the daily attacks in which they engage less vicious? Of course not. The whole argument against pseudonyms remains as ridiculous even when Mr. Dean puts it forward.

Most of the people with whom I’ve become friends with don’t use their real names in public online situations. There are many very valid reasons for this. If I chose to ignore them based strictly on their reluctance to out themselves, I would not have come to know these remarkable people. My own life has benefited by not assuming everyone who uses a pseudonym is doing so for nefarious reasons. Eventually I came out to these folks and they to me, but it took some time. Learning to trust them is not something I’ve ever regretted.

The folks on Twitter are not assholes because they’re anonymous. They’re assholes because they’re insulated and have found a group that will cheer on their attacks. They’ve successfully intimidated other people against speaking out against them. These other people like to say “I don’t want to get involved” but I don’t necessarily believe that. Mr. Dean is correct when he says that people who speak against the group are targets– even if they were once part of the group.
For people who do not like confrontation, this tactic is very scary. A target is identified and if the conflict goes on long enough, the group is warned “I will unfollow you if you follow this person”. The instigators are declared the victims and if their supporters are true friends, they’ll stop associating with the “bullies”¹. I’ve both seen this happen and been subject to it. A lot of people will say “Pshaw, who the fuck are you to tell me who to follow?” but the implication is there. Their “true friends” will get the hint and avoid all contact with the accused bully– if they are seen supporting the target then they could become the target.

I’ll go so far as to say they are “emboldened” not by those that mock them or give them negative attention. They enjoy the power they have over the people who are stuck in the middle. The ones that will silently, and not so silently, side with them through unfollows and blocks. They enjoy watching people flock to their defense and hold others to a standard to which they themselves are not held. That is the attention they crave. They are the victim in every scenario, they are protected and they are cherished. They enjoy that and feed on it. They create the crises from which they must be saved². And they do get saved by their ultra-aggressive group of Wannabes. It’s not the anonymity that drives them. They may not behave this way when face to face with someone, but they’re not the slightest bit ashamed of putting their real name– and reputation– to their behavior.

Their favorite targets are those that have a professional online reputation to maintain. I find that interesting. And every time one of those professionals blocks them they whine that person is a coward and afraid of “debate”. Meh. Maybe they’ll pick, pick, pick until the professional target strikes back. At that point they’ll whine that s/he is “unprofessional”. The behavior is so recognized that when it’s over-exaggerated in a mock conversation, people not in on the game can see what it’s about. So, why do their targets not block them on sight? Who cares if they whine about cowards? They don’t want a debate, they want to frustrate someone to the point that they will say something that can be used against them over and over. That tidbit will then be repeatedly fed to their core group of supporters, who will attack on their behalf. It’s a cycle they love to keep going and people who take them seriously actually make it worse on themselves. By engaging them, you’re feeding them. The old adage “Don’t feed the trolls” seems suitable in this instance³.

Except when the behavior is so over-the-top ridiculous that it begs to be mocked. I’m all about that.

P.S.

Check out Gizmodo’s funny take on this issue.

Originally posted the first portion of this on G+

1. Either their targets or the people who actually speak out against them.
2. See here for Serial Bully
3. None of this is to say bullying is a joke. There are real online bullies, those that hunt for and find personal information and create havoc in someone’s offline life. Those that stalk and prey on the weak don’t shy from the intertubz. This post doesn’t address that.

The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.

“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” the White House statement said. [emphasis added]

On December 31, 2011, a day when most Americans weren’t paying attention, he signed it into law.

There are plenty of places where you can read what is wrong with this law. My biggest issue is that it takes Bush Era policies and expands them. No longer are we just hunting al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization that may have had contact with them. At one point, there was a defined end to this mythical war, but this new law removes that.Prior to this, the end of the “War on Terror” was defined as the point at which the leaders of this organization– “the people who knocked these buildings down”– were caught or killed. And that would be it. We would be done saving the world. Except the definition of “terrorist” has expanded. Or rather, it’s been made purposely vague.

Of course, there’s the part of this bill where our military can detain citizens of other countries until “the end of hostilities”. What hostilities? How will they end? Again, we’re dealing with nebulous non-definitions. Many are minimizing the impact of the bill by saying that Americans can/can’t be detained. It’s not just about Americans. It’s about human beings, even if they aren’t citizens of this country. Anyone the government identifies as a terrorist or someone who has provided support to a terrorist organization can be made to sit for however long our President deems appropriate without even getting a chance to defend themselves against the accusation that they are conspiring against us. And they can’t get representation so that this can come before our own Supreme Court, because our government doesn’t have to disclose that we even have them! But it’s not bad because, well, Obama signed it. And, well, he’s a Democrat.

I’m not writing this post about this abhorrent law though. I made my case against these kinds of abuses when Bush was doing them¹. Just because a Democrat signed this law does not make it acceptable. All it means is that a fucking Democrat signed a law that strips people of basic human rights. I’m writing this post because of the goddamned nuPUMAs who are twisting themselves silly trying to excuse this nonsense.

This isn’t about “debunking” anything, though the nuPUMAs are busy trying every manner of misdirection to “debunk”² our outrage that this shit was signed. This is about pointing out absolute hypocrisy, lies and apologia. Of course, this is to be expected from either side of the political divide, but it especially sickens me when people who claim they are progressive do this shit. Here is the basic logic:

1) Democrats are good.
2) Our guy is a Democrat.
3) Our guy embraces Neocon policy.
4) We embrace Neocon policy because our guy is good.

According to his most ardent supporters, Obama had no choice but to sign the bill. Here are some of the reason why he supposedly had no choice.

He has to work with that Congress. They forced him to sign that.

See this argument may have worked the first few times he “compromised” against the interests of his base, but it’s weak sauce at this point. Why? Because Obama has shown that he can absolutely get what he wants when he wants it if he wants it bad enough. Even with this Congress. Yes, there are a lot of whiny ass titty baby teatards playing silly games. But when it comes right down to it, Obama can get the important policy through the wall of obstinacy.

Example: The fight for extension of unemployment benefits. Eric Cantor and John Boehner were fools to try to push through their shit, but they’d done it before so probably expected to win that fight. But our leader took control of that situation. He didn’t want that mess with the XL pipeline in the UI bill. He told his people that it was a no-go. The Senate did what they were supposed to do, but the House, like petulant children, stomped, sputtered and refused to budge. The President got out in front of the American people and reminded them that it was the GOP that was holding unemployment hostage; it was the GOP that was trying to ruin Christmas for millions of struggling Americans; that it was the GOP that was working in a way that would cause millions of people to become homeless. He went on television and made speeches and did his job.

The GOP stood down. Obama won the message war and that two-month extension was passed without the XL pipeline bullshit stuck to it. He wanted that XL pipeline out of that bill. They let it go. Because he was strong.

To say that he was “forced” to sign this bill is to also say he is a weak leader. That doesn’t work when you look at the single incident which I just mentioned. He’s done it before, with the debt ceiling, with ending DADT. He has the power and the strength to use that power.

So, no, Congress didn’t force him to sign this bill against his own wishes. He made sure that the bill he signed was good enough for him. If he didn’t get what he wanted the veto pen would have been dusted off and finally used.

But they passed it with a veto-proof majority!

Apparently. But we don’t know how that really would’ve played out had he not announced he was going to sign prior to the vote. He gave political cover to Democrats³ who don’t want to go home to ads claiming they didn’t support the War on Terror. They were safe to vote with the next election in mind, because he told them he was signing anyway. Politicians make deals with each other. All the time. They give and take so they can vote yea or nay on whatever issue. That’s a fact. So, we really won’t know what might have happened had this to gone back to Congress after a veto. He didn’t do it.

On the other side of that excuse, so what if he did? So, they override his veto and it gets passed anyway. It wouldn’t be Obama’s law at that point. It actually would be the fault of Congress. And he, along with other Dems, could’ve used that against any GOP member who voted in favor. Scary voice says: “John Boehner wants to end habeas corpus for American people. He voted to remove your civil liberties and voted to gut the Constitution.” Cut to Teabaggers behind bars, Grannies for Peace behind a fence, Lactivists and their nursing infants sitting inside a fenced box.

I believe that if he’d have held his ground and pushed, as he did with the unemployment extension and the debt ceiling, there would have been no veto-proof majority. In the end, the Dems would have fought tooth and nail to get their people to fall in line. It was an important bill and they would have needed to stand behind him during an election year. I refuse to believe that President Obama is so weak and powerless that he couldn’t have safely vetoed that bill. I’ve decided that he’s strong enough that when it matters, he gets his people in line. I’ve seen him do it and I think he’d have done it here.

He got what he wanted in the bill and he supported it. So he signed it. The signing statement was for our benefit, to ease our outrage. Not because portions of the bill were so terrible that he felt uncomfortable they were included.

But the GOP would have called him “weak” on terror and use that against him in the election!

That’s just fucking tomfoolery. The GOP is probably at this very second doing up ads showing Americans behind fences, dressed in orange and a sign overhead that says “Guantanamo”. The scary voice will warn Americans who are already afraid that the scary black mooslim president is going to throw them in jail. The people in “Obama’s prisons” will be holding bibles in one hand and little crying blonde children in the other hand. The voice will insinuate that Obama will lock away anyone who speaks against him– roll scene with teapartiers locked in Gitmo. BAM!

There is nothing this president will do or has ever done that will not be used against him to scare the fuck out of white, christian voters. This just gave them a bit of a larger demographic– those who do not trust government and who are afraid of what happens when the president gets too much power like that. You may laugh and call them kooks. But they’re also voters. They may not be afraid of scurry mooslims, but those people are scared to death that our country will become some goddamned totalitarian/fascist/nazi strong hold. They will see those fucking ads.

The really bad ones have already lost their minds and have run from Obama when news of the signing came out. But there are the others that will see those ads. I can see them now, al Awalaki will become a martyr to them because he was a citizen that our President assassinated without benefit of trial. “Who else will he assassinate?”, the scary voice whispers.

So, he was afraid of looking “weak” in a GOP ad. Which one of those ads would Democrats prefer to see at this point?

But the military families would have gone without FOOD.

Besides the fact that military paychecks would not have stopped, that’s just overall bullshit. He shamed the GOP with the unemployment extension, and those people were going to lose their money right before Christmas. Yet, he was willing to risk that their benefits. That was ok for the unemployed to potentially lose their holiday, get their utilities disconnected or lose their homes. Democratic leadership was going to keep Congress in D.C. until the UE extension passed. President Obama went on the offensive and asked Americans to call their congresscritter and demand they pass the extension. And then the GOP caved.

He threatened to veto the bill already. He was already playing hardball. He got what he wanted and if that hadn’t happened then hypothetically military families were going to suffer⁴. So, no, he wasn’t forced to sign the NDAA in order to ensure military families received their money. That’s a bullshit excuse.

But the signing statement!

You can read the entire signing statement here. I’m putting a portion of it here.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

The biggest problem with the signing statement is very clear: President Obama will not be the president forever and ever amen. He is, as of now, restricted to two terms by the highest law of the land. Because I am not an idiot, I realize that this law in the hands of someone, I dunno, like George W. Bush is going to be very, very bad for our Constitution. Especially if we get some nutter who decides that “belligerent acts” against the U.S. include pitching a tent in Zucotti Park without a permit. Those protesters can be deemed hostile, become “terrorists” and are then potentially thrown into a cell somewhere until the “end of hostilities”–which probably will never come because we’ll be fighting the War on Terror until god knows when. It’s no longer just about al Qaeda. It’s about anyone “hostile” to the United States and our “interests”⁵. Let another GWB get a hold of that and see what happens.

And we’re supposed to believe that the NDAA is too broad for President Obama with regards to detentions and fighting this “war”. However, the words “restricting” and “minimally acceptable” and “flexibility” stand out to me. There are too many restrictions in this law. The restrictions inhibit their ability to get information and keep us safe⁶. That is alarming to me. This is a Bush policy. It is codified into law and now he’s signed it.

We can blame Congress until the cows come home. But I said it on Twitter and I’ll say it here– when he signed it, it became his. Just like the laws Bush signed– they became his, not the Congress that gave them to him. There’s this amazing tool that Presidents have to prevent abhorrent bills from becoming laws: the veto pen.

It was current law/status quo/nothing changed. It was like this since Bush, so what’s so bad about it now?

Because Bush was a wonderful President, right? Nothing at all wrong with his policies. No one expected those policies to change drastically. I mean, Progressives who voted for the end to Bush military policy regard the War on Terror certainly have no reason to complain. Nothing changed! Why, that right there is why it’s good enough.

That weak sauce is worth nothing but total mockery. It’s a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Instead of being pissed at our guy for signing this piece of shit, we’re just going to pretend it was never that bad to begin with. It’s the “Our Guy is the good guy so everything he does is SUPER” argument. Similar to “My kid is the good kid so if she regularly steals from the store that’s SUPER.”

Why do we care about terrorists? They’re not Americans and want to kill us.

Ah, it’s always refreshing when that freaking worm turns. Here we have Nutter talking points spewed by so-called progressives. Isn’t that so cute? As they sit on Twitter, attacking any progressive who doesn’t agree with them, they sometimes laugh at Teatards for being hypocrites and misinformed, but have no problem spouting talking points straight from Rove circa 2005. I’ll consider, for a split second, that they aren’t hypocrites themselves. That must mean they really did support these policies under Bush and are, therefore, fake fucking liberals/ratfuckers.

Since this thing has been signed, I have seen many self-described progressives poo-pooing the rest of us as deranged and hair-on-fire, while they twist themselves silly trying to excuse Bush so they can’t be decried as hypocrites and/or liars. They will claim that our President is so weak that he can get nothing done because of Congress⁷, but that he is a strong leader for having to compromise. Or some such shit.

So, while I was working on this long-ass post⁸, another interesting thing happened. More Bush apologia from one of the biggest opportunists on Twitter:

Bush’s complex issues were distorted by Glenn Greenwald.

This was probably made because he has a huge flame-war going on with Greenwald. I get that. People are generally stupid when they’re trying to smash someone else’s argument. Greenwald’s argument is the civil liberties violations that the NDAA contains are bad; they were bad when Bush did it and they’re bad now that Obama is doing it. So, the argument used against that is Bush’s issues were “distorted” for all those years. We’re so eager to make the furtherance of Bush policy palatable that we’ll go ahead and make the entire Bush era ok. I can’t even properly mock that because it’s so fucking ridiculous that it mocks itself.

nuPUMAs, fauxgressives, PragHags, what-the-fuck-ever you want to call it these excuses are made in a way that’s dishonest and laughable. Well, I guess I can’t say “dishonest” because I’m wondering if those pushing these arguments the hardest were actually progressives to begin with. So let’s call them “revealing” instead. I’m having a really hard time believing, at this point, that they ever had a problem with Bush’s War on Terra. If that’s true, then they aren’t being dishonest, are they? They aren’t being inconsistent in their beliefs, either. I will maintain that their arguments are inconsistent and dishonest, though. If they can’t make that round peg fit into the square hole, they sure will force that motherfucker in there.

I supported Obama⁹ through most of the insurance fight. I was not crying in my beer wishing for my pony. I was glad that he signed Lily Ledbetter and that he increased Pell grants. I was glad when GLBT servicemen and women were allowed to serve openly. We were all happy that the occupation of Iraq ended¹⁰. I’m happy he didn’t cave on the XL pipeline (yet). He did some recess appointments today that were good. This post isn’t about all of those other things. And anyone who knows my history, knows that I did support him when I decided against Clinton. I knew I would have some disappointments¹¹ from what he said and to whom he said them. He was very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth. I knew there would be no change, rainbows or lollipops. I did not, however, believe that he would continue with the idiocy Bush/Cheney began with this War on Terra. If there was a single issue that glued the Progressive blogosphere together throughout GWB’s entire tenure, it was our hatred of that “war”. By signing the NDAA, Obama told that portion of his base that he didn’t hear a fucking thing we said about the war.

For the people who have been screaming, writing, and hair-on-fire against this war since Bush started it, that really does matter. There’s nothing inconsistent with that. There most certainly was no distortion of Bush policies. The people who supported Bush and have no problem with the continuance of those policies, who also support Obama, well, I guess they’ll find any reason to support their guy– even if it means making up bullshit excuses.

Reviewed by Tricia

1. The same Bush that progressives were screaming be brought to trial for war crimes.
2. “Debunk” usually means there is a myth being exposed as false. The NDAA is not a myth. It’s a fact and it’s a law. There’s no “debunking” that bullshit.
3. Possibly even Republicans.
4. Not really because they would’ve continued to get their pay, but we’ll play along for now.
5. Considering who decide those interests at this point, that bit is terrifying by itself.
6. Where have we all heard that before?
7. And couldn’t get anything done with the previous Congress, mind you, though they do credit him solely for passing the Affordable Care Act.
8. Considering how unfocused I am anymore, it’s a surprise I’ve made it this far.
9. I hate having to put this disclaimer, damn it all. My history stands in my archives.
10. Not the War on Terror, though. Just the occupation of Iraq.
11. Like when he came to my school and promised to rein in NAFTA and fill our manufacturing plants with solar panels and other new innovation. Then he went to Brownsville, TX and told them he would keep NAFTA because they were doing well on the border. Pandering bullshit.

They are no different than the PUMAs were with Clinton back in ’08.

Sure, they’re smarter and don’t use so many exclamation points. But they behave the same when someone dares write anything negative about Obama. The same refusal to believe that he can be at all fallible. He’s no more than a rock star to them and damned anyone for saying otherwise.

This is illustrated best by the most recent event– the failure of the Super Committee to kill Medicare come to a compromise. Previous to the final decision, some of the nuPUMA² kept reminding people that Obama couldn’t work with the Congress he has. They were hamstringing him and there was nothing he could do. He was powerless against them. Some were saying that Obama was staying out of the Super Committee workings; keeping hands off. He is, afterall, at the mercy of Congress and has no influence over them.

Then the Super Committee failed. No compromises on killing Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. No accepting GOP extortion, in my opinion. Suddenly, the nuPUMA are celebrating Obama’s victory. He put pressure on them, you see, it was all his doing.

Good grief, make up my fucking mind. Either he has no influence and can get nothing done, or he can twist arms and get his way.

Well, see, if you ask this question then the issue becomes “Are you going to vote?” I don’t know why. I don’t understand the way that works. Ask an honest question and get that shit back. Of course, PUMA didn’t make sense to me either.

Another example is the police violence on Occupiers. I am a staunch supporter of the Occupy Movement. I truly believe that this country is fucked because politicians are bought and paid for by the banks and their lackeys. I understand the movement and get their point. I roll my eyes heavily when someone says “What do they want?” It’s a leaderless, nonpolitical movement. There is no Heritage Foundation to make the message palatable. You have to actively discuss the issues with occupiers and pay attention. Even if you don’t agree with the movement, the violence against the Occupiers is uncalled for. It’s extreme, ugly and is obviously an attempt to suppress the message. Tear gas, rubber bullets, arresting the press, confiscating equipment, using billy clubs against student, pepper spray on elderly ladies, ramming people with horses. If you watch what is happening you’d think it was happening somewhere else³.

I was one person that questioned why Obama will make a statement in support of Egyptian protesters, but ignore the violence perpetrated against American citizens. We wondered why he didn’t issue a statement against the violence. He is, afterall, a Constitutional scholar and the leader of this country. Was a simple statement too much to ask?

Apparently it was. The nuPUMAs were up in arms. Why hadn’t we spoken out against police violence before? Why would we think the President would have any influence over the local law enforcement agencies⁴? Why would he want to get involved? He has no responsibility, you see, to the people of this country. That responsibility lies solely with the mayors and police chiefs. Or something. It’s crazy to expect the President of the United States to have any kind of influence over local politics or to be able to issue a simple statement against the use of force on the Occupiers. He is just the President. Only one man. No one important. I mean, not even he mentioned the police violence against Black folks in this country.

Until someone came across an article from May that said the U.S. was going to investigate cities for civil rights violations (police brutality⁵ and what have you). Well, there you go! That should be enough! That action back in May was actually Obama’s action against violence used on the protesters. Of course, it also shows that Obama didn’t ignore police brutality against People of Color, but that is not the point. I’m such a negative nelly. Forgive me.

I think the nuPUMAs do more damage to Obama than we do. The teabaggers are out for blood, but nuPUMAs excuse his worst offenses and his weakest policy with “He’s got no power.” How is that possible? I actually saw a nuPUMA say that if someone is accused of terrorism they don’t deserve due process. Remember who else said that? I do and his name was Cheney. Assasination lists are ok, as long as Obama is in charge; keeping someone imprisoned without a trial is ok, as long as Obama is in charge; rendition is ok, as long as Obama is in charge; etc etc. Remember when Bush used his Executive office to give himself unprecedented presidential powers? I do too. Obama, gods love him, has helped himself to those same powers.

I’ve also recently seen “Inside Job”. I’ve got to say, the fact that Obama kept many of Bush’s financial advisers makes me ill. But I really expected him to be another Clinton, so that’s not too surprising. What’s surprising is that his Bush-like policies are getting lauded by some of the same people who want Bush in jail⁶.

I don’t like the nuPUMA and that’s who this post is about. I know in 2012 I’ll cast a vote for Obama because I’ll have no other choice. I’m pretty sure he’s already won the election considering the candidates that have been chosen to run for the GOP side⁷. I don’t like nuPUMAs because I didn’t like old PUMAs. They bug the shit out of me. Always twisting and turning and putting aside their previously held beliefs. Honestly, I think I’m going to start just copying and pasting their silly contradictions just so I can keep them bookmarked while pointing and laughing at the same time.

1. The people that have come up with those labels are themselves paid pundits, or trying to be.
2. I’ll come up with a better name for them, but this one will do for now
3. I realize these things happen here all the time. But with Twitter and other social networking tools the images get out much, much faster.
4. The very agencies that were, of course, authorizing the force used against the protesters.
5. I’ll look for it. I don’t have the link handy right now.
6. Which is never going to happen because we have to move forward.
7. Could they get anymore comical? Really?

I was reading a forum¹ and a lady there mentioned that she’s angry that Georgia’s new immigration law separates American-born children from their immigrant parents. I haven’t really considered that part of the immigration equation, but I’m thinking I would take my child back with me were she really young or give her a choice to say if she were old enough to decide for herself. I’m not sure that the fact that these parents put their children in the custody of family friends is so heinous, because the kids are citizens and the parents aren’t. So, I don’t really have an opinion on that right now².

Anyway, the discussion devolved into that same “arrest all illegals” shit and somehow the “illegals” were stealing American heritage from legal citizens.

How the fuck is it possible for them to steal someone’s heritage, by the way? The only thing I can figure is that they’re having children with American citizens and somehow contaminating our gene pool. Still, which heritage? I want the exact heritage they’re stealing, because it varies by area of the country, right? Here the primary heritage is Scots-Irish and German. Are they going to take our traditional Pork, sauerkraut and mashed potatoes on New Year’s Eve? Bah!

Now, I get fired up thinking of how American companies exploit these folks in their homeland and basically force them to seek better living conditions far, far away. If their lives were livable in their own country, would they risk so much to cross the desert? Really? No. I refuse to believe they would. I get pissed off at my state legislature, but I can tell you that it’s not so bad here that I’d swim across Lake Erie to get into Canada. No fucking way.

Then this dumbass says that Americans expect to much money and we should, basically, lower our standard of living to compete globally. Lower it. Further? It’s so unfair to these companies that they have to pay their employees wages and follow labor laws and make sure their workplace is safe. We are fucking behind the curve here, people. Behind it! There are not enough poor people in this country. And if more people would be voluntarily poor, then our country could compete in a global marketplace. Those motherfuckers expecting decent wages are all holding us back! Don’t you see it? Sure, a guy making $25 an hour is going to spend more money on stuff, buy a home, buy a nice car and be able to afford health insurance. But he’s bringing the rest of us down. It’s that selfish motherfucker’s fault our manufacturing industry moved out of our borders. If he’d have been fine living in a hut, making less than minimum wage³ and not caring about his teeth, then we’d still have jobs. It’s the guy wanting to have a good life causing our economic woes, bitches!

Instead of saying “Well, maybe the poor saps in Guatamala would do better with wages more in line with ours, allowing them to have a decent life, then they wouldn’t want to leave everything they know and come here” this guy thinks we should all just lower our standard of living, which would, I don’t know, make coming here less appealing? Instead of allowing our own people the opportunity to flourish and do better, we should be happy with the part-time minimum wage shit offered by companies like WalMart. And then those dirty fucking South and Central Americans wouldn’t want to come here. Or something.

I’m going to say again: Why should we lower our standard of living so that corporations can make bigger profits? If more people make more money, they’re going to spend more money. They’re going to have pride of workmanship because they get to fucking build stuff. They’re going to be able to own their homes and raise their families and then spread the fucking wealth. Poverty will probably always be here, but I know that the area where I live now did a whole lot better when we had factories and steel mills. We’d congratulate people for getting into Republic Steel or the Hoover Company. Because those were good jobs. Those people didn’t get food stamps or need the medical card or have to go to food banks. They could pay their fucking gas bills every goddamned month. They didn’t have to worry about losing their homes. Back in the day, Hoover vacuums were the shit. People got paid good money to put them together and they took pride in that. Not anymore. Nope. Gotta look at that bottom line so these fucking CEOs can have their fleet of jets.

People want to point at the immigrants as the problem. They don’t want to look at why the immigrants are flocking here. Look at this article about WalMart’s jewelry (5 pages long). Think about what kind of fucking life the people in that factory have compared to the life they could have picking vegetables here. It’s no wonder that they want to come here. Our corporations go there and rape their land, barely pay their people (they’d try to get free labor if they could– believe that) and leave a mess. Then we buy the shit they make. Of course they want to come here. They want to buy the shit they make too. I know I don’t blame them. If I had a life like that I’d do what I could to improve it. In fact, my own heritage originates from people who fled horrible conditions to come here.

There’s an argument that we’re making the lives of those people better by offering them employment opportunities, but I don’t buy that. If we cared about making their lives better, our corporations would be required to pay them decent wages and follow strict labor and environmental laws. They lived decently before we came in and built our factories and shoved our own culture down their throats. If we insist on doing that then we should insist that they be afforded the same labor protections that we enjoy.

The problem isn’t that we’re giving them such a wonderful life (obviously we’re not) but that Americans don’t want to pay the price for people making a livable wage. This argument extends to the crap about “illegals” picking our crops. Georgia’s having a problem with that right now and Americans aren’t stepping up to do the job. They don’t like the work. But even worse is they don’t like the idea of paying a higher price for otherwise cheap food. Instead of eating food in season, as the case historically has been, we want it year round, but we want it cheap. So the huge commercial farms need workers to harvest these crops from hot climates– workers who are grateful for less than minimum wage and who won’t bitch about unfair treatment. My side argues for immigrants using the argument that we’re going to have to pay more for food. Why the fuck shouldn’t we? If we paid fair wages to everyone we exploit– here and abroad — shit would get extremely expensive but more people would be able to afford it. And companies would be less likely to look elsewhere to build their manufacturing facilities. We’d all benefit from fair treatment of the immigrants before they decide to leave their homes.

I get very frustrated that people think that those suffering are the ones who should be punished. When Park Farms ships in workers, they get a fine, but other than that they’re free from prosecution. Some dude complains about his treatment in that chicken plant gets called a criminal. The root cause of the immigration “problem” isn’t even examined because corporations enjoy special benefits for…job creation?

Just imagine if these folks didn’t have a reason to leave their homes. Would they bother you then? Imagine if their standard of living was on par with ours. They’d visit here and then go home. Home, to their families and their own way of life. They leave home for a reason and that reason is our own fucking greed and apathy.

So endeth the rant.

Updated:
I added the link to the article about the effect of the Georgia immigration law. I’d like to point out that the point of that article, to me, isn’t that the current workers are probationers. It’s that these jobs are available and in such an economy, the government has to encourage “legals” to take them. Consider that and then consider the pay.

Also, we’ve already been forced to lower our standard of living in this country. I know 4 families who have had their gas turned off because the rates are so high and their incomes are so low. Our environmental standards are going to have to get lower too, thanks to the need of these same gas companies. They’re raising their rates for us while their polluting our ground water. Makes perfect economic sense.

1. Sorry, folks, it’s private, so it makes no sense to link to it.
2. I’m all over the place because I really do think there could be some benefit in these children going to their parents’ homeland and coming back here later as citizens, but I don’t know for sure.
3. Which is wrong! Holding us down!

There was a massive celebration on Twitter as it was happening. If you can’t be at a party to enjoy the good news, Twitter is the place to be. Thousands of people on the hashtag, whoopin’ and hollerin’ and just loving every minute of it. It really feels like a party when Twitter is like that over an important issue such as marriage equality. This is a huge victory in the battle for rights for all people and it was a grand victory too.

It doesn’t take long for the party poopers to start jamming their elbows in people’s noses though. I say this is a state by state fight, because there is almost no support on the federal level for marriage equality. That’s fine with me. As someone reminded us of what President Obama said:

POTUS: Marriage equality “best addressed by the states.”

Some things that Obama said regarding his stance on gay marriage:

1. Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
2. Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
3. Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
4. Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
5. Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
6. Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
7. Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that “give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights.”
8. The White House front-runner said in an interview with MTV he did not support same-sex weddings and believed “marriage is between a man and a woman”.
   But the Illinois senator reaffirmed his opposition to a proposition on the ballot in California that would change the state constitution to overturn a ruling that recently gave gay couples the right to marry.
   “When you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America is about,” the senator said.
   “Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them,” he added.
   The Democratic presidential nominee voiced strong support for civil unions between same-sex couples “that provide legal rights to same-sex couples (so) that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, (so) they can transfer property to each other. If they’ve got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners.”

[all emphasis mine]

That is Barack Obama’s record. That’s fine, because I knew that when I voted for him. Nothing new there. But with this victory in New York, I saw some Progressives claim that it was Obama’s influence that helped get this bill passed. The man who thought that gay rights and marriage should be “disentangled” and that marriage is between a man and a woman and that civil unions (separate but equal) were good enough for LGBT people who were in love and wanted to marry was somehow responsible for a state law calling a marriage between two gays a marriage. No civil union crap. None of that definition of the word marriage crap. Gays can get married in New York. And Obama always, always stated he was against same-sex marriage. How, then, is this his doing? How did he get this ball rolling?

I credit the people who fought the fight. Those on the ground and who were able to win over the hearts of the legislatures who voted for them. That’s where the credit goes– full stop. I am a supporter of Obama, but I was never fond of his distaste for the phrase “gay marriage”. He’s a good Christian man and a politician to boot, so he says what he thinks will get him elected. That’s lovely. But don’t give the man credit for something he didn’t do.

He purposely stayed out of these fights because he believes gay rights are states issues. I’ve provided a quote for that right here. That’s good too. Let’s take Dean’s 50 state strategy and use it for ourselves. One by one, they will fall. And they will fall because of the people who are fighting for it– because of the people who don’t want to settle for separate but equal.

I think Barack Obama is a good President and has followed through with most of his campaign promises. I never expected him to fully support marriage equality, because he specifically said he didn’t. That’s fine with me. He’s the president and when the big change happens in this country it’s usually the people of the country who bring it about– not the man in the Whitehouse. I’m good with that. I’m not good with giving him credit for a fight that’s been going on for decades and is only now starting to gain traction, without aid of the federal government, by the way. This wasn’t his fight and I don’t like people giving him the credit for it.

I’ll also note that this isn’t about his feelings about gay rights as a whole. This is just the marriage issue. I know he opposes constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and he’s against DOMA. I know that he’s against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’m there with him on that. But he gave the marriage battle to the states and the people of those states are working hard to win those battles. When we do achieve a victory, like the one in New York today, then that victory belongs to the people who fought for it and the politicians who did the right thing and voted for it.

Maybe someday there will be another case in front of the Supreme Court like Loving v. Virginia, but a gay version. And then the decision will become a federal one. Maybe if enough people decide that their marriage rights in their home state should extend to the states they visit on vacation, the Supreme Court will finally get involved and settle this once and for all. That’s the outcome I’m ultimately hoping for– the final decision from the High Court. Until then, the battles wage on– state by motherfucking state. One at a time. We’re doing it just like the President told us we should do it; leaving his hands clean and giving him no credit. Not for this one.

Because I believe that Obama has been true to his word (quoted above) and don’t expect any help from him, I’ll probably be labeled an emProg or a racist¹ or a bitch (as Rachel Maddow, the most liberal member of the MSM ever, was called the other night). I don’t really care. I know who I voted for. He kept to his word and so, for this, he gets no credit.

Congratulations, New York. Welcome to the brave new world of marriage equality and equal rights for all. Bless the members of your legislature who were bold enough to say “yes” and to those fine fighters on the ground that did all of the work to get them to say “yes”. You rock and have made this Ohioan very proud.

1. Hahahahaahahahaha!