“Obama doesn’t mention [Qaddafi]¹”

This is heard on both the left and the right. I was going to do a direct search for the Firebagger brigade, but I didn’t want my brain to stab me.

“OMG! Obama isn’t doing enough!”

Today we sent unmanned drones into Libya. But I didn’t know about it when it happened. I just happened to look into my Twitter stream. What do I see?

“OMG! Obama’s bombing Libya!”

Motherfuckers. I did check in on the Firebagger brigade for their reaction to this news. Dur. I almost punched my laptop in it’s throat.

I’m glad that we’re bombing Libya– with help from France, Canada, the UK and Qatar. I’m glad that we’re not going to let that man continue to kill the people of Libya. Unlike in Egypt, where the police and army refused to fire on the citizenry, the Libyan army is following Qaddafi’s orders to massacre people who are exercising their right to protest an egregious government. Yes, the Egyptians were able to peacefully overthrow their government. But that only happened because the army didn’t turn on them. What are Libyans supposed to do? They are fighting for their lives and their freedom– going against unbelievable odds; sacrificing their lives for a cause that seemed to be lost. Finally, we sent help. And that thrills me. I’m not someone who thinks that all war and death are avoidable. Humans are not by nature a peaceful species. We are violent and territorial by nature. I’m not lost so far up into the clouds to think that Qaddafi can be reasoned with or that we should ignore what’s happening to his people. I certainly don’t want to ignore it.

Of course, I’m not one that thinks that turning the other cheek works in all situations or that simply talking to a bully really works. I’m of the school that believes sometimes a bully needs smacked the fuck down. In this case there will be people killed. There have been people killed. Now it’s time to throw down. Good for us².

Now that I’ve got that out of my system, I have a question:

What the fuck was Obama supposed to do with regards to Qaddafi? Should he have challenged him to a thumb wrestling match with the winner getting control of the Libyan government?

“Hey, Q, how about we thumb wrestle this out? You win, you get to keep killing people. I win, you stop and GTO. K?”

Because, yeah, I can see that totally working.

Wait, even thumb wrestling is too violent? Qaddafi might get a cramp in his thumb? How about a gentlemanly game of “Go Fish” then? Would that work better?

I don’t get it. I really don’t. I think that some Progressives need a reason to be pissed off at the government. They need a reason to pull at their hair and gnash their teeth. Any fucking reason to scream and run around with their hair on fire. How goddamned tiring. I can’t tell you how exhausted this makes me. I can’t take it anymore.

I have a suggestion for the Hair on Fire Brigade™: How about you be pissed off at the state governments that are stripping away any kind of progress that we’ve made in the last 100 years? How about you focus on motherfuckers like Kasich, Scott, Snyder, Corbett, Perry and Walker³? There should be plenty of outrage to keep you busy until well after 2012. Get busy, screamers. Help take this fight back to the 50 state strategy to which Dean introduced us.

I’m going back to not being affiliated with any political ideology. Seriously, I can’t stand this nonsense. Republican governments all over the country are destroying the middle class, the poor and women, while these WATBs are busy caterwauling that Obama just isn’t doing enough for them. Guess what? Doesn’t matter what Obama does for you at this point. The teabaggers have decided to do their damage state by state and they’re winning. So, why is he still being given magical powers?

I’m glad that we’re not sitting on our asses with regards to Libya. The people there are fighting for their lives and they deserve to have someone stand up for them. Good for us. Now I’m going to go back to feeling utterly hopeless because I live in Ohio and Ohio elected Kasich. I’m a big believer in a silver lining, but I don’t see it with that guy. No more Progressive politics for me. I can’t take the goddamned hair pulling.

I’m done with politics. I’m done participating in online politics. Over it all. Before Bush was elected I was more of a centrist. I’m going back to that position. Seriously, if being a Progressive requires being angry all the damned time, I don’t want any part of it. Fuck it.

1. Spell it however you want.
2. I supported operations in Afghanistan too. Because I hate bullies and because I think sometimes we need to stand up for the weak.
3. That’s just a short list of teabagging idiots who are raping our states.

The first one might not amuse you generally, but it made me laugh my evil laugh¹. I was looking at my stats yesterday and saw that a couple of people were coming here via a search for the term “what is a firebagger“. Well, the 2nd result on the page is my post “Firebaggers“. I already knew that post was high on that particular search, but then I noticed this TPM post. It points to the Urban Dictionary definition of “firebaggers”:

2. Firebagger
A person nominally of the political left viewed as excessively critical of President Barack Obama, especially if the tendency is to reflexively or obsessively criticize him and seemingly not other political figures. Etymology: Jane Hamsher’s popular, left-leaning FireDogLake blog was regarded by Democratic moderates as having gone around the bend in being hypercritical, such as when Hamsher appeared on Fox News to denounce Obama’s Health Care Bill, got involved with Neocon zealot Grover Norquist and even reportedly Tea Party activists. Thus, <b>FireDogLake + Teabagger. </b>

The best part? Whoever decided to post that definition quoted my post for the example on it’s usage (2nd to last paragraph):

Firebaggers are just pissed because Obama hasn’t invited them into the Whitehouse and/or isn’t the Great Liberal Savior they thought he was going to be (depending on the firebagger doing the bitching).

That makes me giggle just because I really don’t like firebaggers and they get all pissy when anyone calls them that.

To anyone searching for that term: There’s your definition of “firebagger”. You can stop reading now.

My 2nd story is more personal. Last week I went into work and saw a flier for a self-defense course. On that flier was a bulleted list of things that will be covered. One of the bullet points read:

5 Ques to look out for when an attacker is approaching [emphasis mine]

Well, I’m all kinds of helpful, so I scratched out “Ques” and wrote “cues”. Then I went about my merry way.

I come back into the alley and Chick is losing her mind. “Who changed that? Who changed that?!” She’s looking all around, her arms flailing.

Me: “I did.”

Her: “Well, you’re wrong. That’s not how you spell it.”

Me: “Yes, it is. I’m not wrong.”

So, we go back and forth for a minute. I laugh and leave the alley. I had work to do, guests to take care of, blah blah blah. Besides, doesn’t everyone (besides her) know how to spell “cues”?

Apparently not. I come back into the alley and there’s quite the scene. People are telling me I’m wrong– I laugh because I’m not. They’re just thinking she can’t possibly be wrong. She decides she’s going to prove I’m wrong (without benefit of a dictionary, of course).

Her: “That’s how you spell a pool cue. That’s not how you spell a regular cue. A pool cue is a thing, but this isn’t.”

Didn’t make any sense to me either. I mean, a noun is a noun is a… whatever. This is funny shit to me. I can’t believe she’s arguing some kind of difference.

Me: “That’s how your spell the pool cue and the cue that indicates some kind of mark or sign. They’re spelled the same. Maybe you’re thinking of q-u-e-u-e, which is pronounce ‘cue’ but doesn’t mean the same thing.”

Kitchen Key²: “Yeah, my Netflix says q-u-e. So she’s right.”

Me: “No. Your Netflix says ‘Instant q-u-e-u-e’. Queue means that something is lined up, such as ‘We’re in the queue to get into the movie’. It doesn’t indicate a mark or sign. You’re wrong. However, ‘q-u-e-s’ does spell “what” in Spanish– kind of.”

Her: “No, I’m not. You’re wrong. And we’re going to prove it. Who’s got internet on their phone?”

So, I laugh again. Another girl comes up to me and whispers “I think you’re right. She’s not going to admit that though.” I laugh some more. This is funny to me. Better than some stupid ass prank. This is some chick losing her mind because she misspelled a word and someone called her on it. I said “She probably thinks that her spell check was wrong too.”

Note: My spell checker is blowing up with the squiggly line on “ques”. Just so ya know.

Next thing I know, Chick and Key are huddled over someone’s phone, frantically (and I mean frantically) looking for their “aha!” moment. Me and the other girl just sat there³ and watched. The other two were typing and looking at each other and we knew they weren’t finding their proof. My friend says “They’re not going to find it.” I look at her and say “Nope. They’re not.” Then we walk out into the dining room⁴.

Oh! But she’s not done! She gives up on the phone because “we can’t find a dictionary”⁵. Of course she can’t find a dictionary. The dictionary proves her wrong. So she goes and asks my friend, The Teacher, to prove her point. My friend tells her we’re both right. Huh? She comes strutting over to me and says “We’re both right. Ha!” Really? So I ask my friend what the fuck she’s thinking. I tell her that Chick was trying to spell q-u-e-u-e and not only misspelled that, but used it wrong. She says “Oh.” Of course, that’s the end of her involvement.

It’s time to go home. Chick hasn’t been able to find anyway to prove that she ignored the spell check on her Word program. She’s pissed and just scratches out “cues” and replaces it with “signs”. I told her that’s what cues meant, after all, and it was better than admitting she was wrong about anything. Meh. That should have ended it, of course. Because we’re all grown and don’t rub salt into the wounds. Right? Wrong.

I came home and looked up both “cues” and “ques”. Only one online source tells me “que” (sans the ‘s’) means “half farthing”. I don’t even care what a half farthing is so I ignore it. I did print out the definition of “cue“, though. Who was right? Well, me of course!

I go to work to rub the salt. This heifer says to me “I meant to spell it ‘q-u-e-u-e’. We’re still both right.” She thought that was the end. Nope. She made such a big deal of it previously, right? She actually convinced other coworkers that I was wrong. Of course I wasn’t done.

Me: “Nope. You’re still wrong. You meant to use it as ‘signs’, which is spelled c-u-e-s. You argued with me about that. You also argued with me about the spelling of the other queue. You’re wrong on all counts. It’s ok. You’re allowed to be wrong here. Next time you should trust that spell check, though.”

With that she literally stormed off and I got yet another chuckle. I love when people get that pissed because there’s just no way they could possibly be wrong⁶. It’s sad but comical. Poor spoiled baby…

1. The one that my friend requested I stop because it gives her the creeps. The “Mwahaha!”. You didn’t know I really do that? I also really say “bomb-diggity”.
2. Assistant to the assistant manager
3. And here I found a typo! Oops. Ironic?
4. Yeah, it was funny and a little dramatic. Ha!
5. Most of her supporters at this time realized she’s full of shit.
6. My mother is exactly the same way. No lie.

I just read this:

I feel it is my duty to remind you that 2012 is fast approaching and this “childish” bullshit is not helping you mend any fences, dude.

You need us to vote for President Obama again, so I suggest you start kissing our collective ass right about now.

Oh. My. God.

Shades of the 2008 Primary anyone? Why, yes. If you recognize that sentiment you are most certainly not alone.¹

The commenter that I’ve quoted, not an Obama fan, was responding to someone who is supportive of Obama. Her contention was that those supportive of Obama need to kiss the asses of those that aren’t. I say “was” because following that she did say that she will vote for him, blah blah blah. But that is not the point.

Once again there is someone saying that Obama supporters have to kiss her ass (and those other Democrats that think like her) to get her vote. I should court her vote by soothing her hurt feelings. OMG! If I don’t do this, then… And that just about made my head explode. Really. I seriously had flashbacks of the 2008 primaries.

Why do people, who have but one vote to cast, insist that it’s the anonymous supporters of Obama who should try to win their vote? Why do we have to make them feel better about the way they vote? Why do they rely on that in their decision on how to cast that vote? Why?!

I don’t know why I’m even surprised that I read that sentiment. I shouldn’t be. I should realize that it’s my job to convince you all how to cast your only vote in a presidential election. Not only my job, but anyone who might vote for the lesser of two fucking evils.

I wonder what’s next:
“I’m casting my vote for McCain that other guy as a protest! That’ll show them goddamned Obamabots! [Insert New Name] RAWR!”

Dear Gods, please give me the strength to pretend I don’t know these folks even exist.

1. PUMA-like behavior doth make me crazy.

Some back ground:
One day in February 2007, an A-list blogger¹ decided that his blogroll was unfair to the little blogger folk². Back in those days, oh-so long ago, linkage was web capital. You got linked by a big blog and it wasn’t so much traffic from their link that helped, but the Google rep from their link that helped you. Alas, the A-listers decided to “reform” their rolls and off came the little dudes. Mostly they just linked to themselves at that point³.

The little bloggers struck back. “Oh, yeah? Well, we’ll show you.” And Blogroll Amnesty Day was born.

According to Blue Gal and skippy, one must link to blogs with less traffic than you and one must not whine that they have the less traffic of all.

I’m going to be different only so far as I’m just going to link to folks who answered my Twitter call. They obviously would like the link and so I shall give them a link (though their PR is probably higher than mine and probably their traffic⁴. I’m also going to link to blogs that are on my blogroll, whether they want it or not.

William K. Wolfrum is hilarious. I don’t even know how I found him on Twitter, but somehow he ended up in my feed. He insists that smaller blogs shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military or get married. Can you imagine the kind of insanity either of those would cause? It’d be the end of blogging as we know it!

I started following David during the early part of the health care reform debate because his is an interesting story. He’s frustrated because his son needs this reform, so David is fighting for him. He is, honorably, trying to take down the teabaggers one at a time. I wish him luck with that as these folks, emboldened by the firebaggers, are a tough bunch to crack. Perhaps he should offer them a free buffet lunch?

El Presidente– who I follow on Twitter as notsotrue– forwarded this very thoughtful and lengthy post onto me. He (or she!) wrote a very good counter to the President’s state of the union address. It’s exceptionally well written, if I do say so myself⁵.

Now, Floyd used to post mainly about politics and I started reading his blog way back when I had my blogger blog⁶. He’s mostly doing blog techy stuff now, which I find totally awesome as I too love that stuff, so I don’t know if this technically falls within the rules of B.A.D.. I don’t care, though.

I’ve been reading Kvatch and co. for some years too (since the old blog). He’s one funny frog. They have a news service that is downright hysterical.

These are my 5 selections for Blogroll Amnesty Day. If you feel I forgot you and you’d like to see yourself there, well, leave me a comment and tell me why. Otherwise, I’ll try to catch up with more next week. Yes, I think I’ll do more “Stumblin’ My Roll” posts as those were always fun and I’d forgotten how to have fun in blogtopia (y!sctp!).

1. Atrios
2. Not the A-list
3. They pretended not to know why linkage was important and pushed the meme that it was traffic from their rolls. They knew that.
4. Stop it! PR 5 blogs are generally wider read. Just sayin’.
5. Moreso than a lot of tripe you see on the A-list blogs– or their “commuity diaries”…heh.
6. He’ll probably remember “Gratis”

What’s a “firebagger”, you ask? It was originally coined by someone at Daily Kos ( in reference to FireDogLake’s new love affair with Grover Norquist and the teabaggers². Of course, Jane Hamsher lost her fucking mind and thought “Well, shit, if they oppose all things Obama and I oppose all things Obama then we’re peas in a pod!” And that’s how the two names became forever entwined.

Now, a few months later, the termed as become to mean something a little broader. Instead of just referring to those on FDL (who love to hate all things Obama) it’s defining other Progressives who would as soon join with the teabaggers as stand against them. These folks decry the term “teabagger” as offensive and insist that they be referred to as “Tea Party Activists”. They see no reason to stand against them and think progressives should reach out and bring them into our fold. They say things like “They’re just like us– except uninformed!” Suddenly instead of being what they’ve proven themselves to be– against Obama at all costs, birthers, racists, cry-babies, anti-union, anti-Progressive and general idiots– the teabaggers are “populists” just like liberals.

Huh-wha?

I was listening to Thom Hartmann’s radio program today and I just couldn’t take it anymore. He was spouting this bullshit about the teabaggers³ being on the same side of us and how they’re just regular folks who don’t know and blah blah blah. The more he yammered, the more irritated I became. I was, for a while, a fan. I haven’t listened in a couple of weeks because I had other things to do. I wasn’t prepared for the teabagger lovefest. And he became just another firebagger to me.

Teabaggers are anti-union. They believe that unions are the bane of the American business. They don’t believe that workers should have the right to organize. They think that auto-workers make too much money and don’t do enough work. They’re happy for the corporations that send their manufacturing overseas (and get tax credits for it).

Teabaggers don’t believe in global warming or environmental protections. They believe global warming is a hoax perpetuated by unions and liberals to further their “anti-business” agenda. They believe that environmental laws inhibit business and cost too much money. They think that Wal-Mart should be able to put a store any damned where they please. They see nothing wrong with logging the rain forest.

Teabaggers are against any kind of regulations on businesses. They think that the banks should be further deregulated, as should the insurance companies. They blame programs for the poor for the financial meltdown. They think the solution to the nation’s health care woes is to completely deregulate the insurance companies– which is their solution to all other problems regarding industry.

Teabaggers want to privatize social security⁴ and do away with most other social programs. Those damned poor people are just leeches, welfare queens and free loaders. Make them all get jobs, but don’t give them minimum wage because that’s too hurtful to businesses.

Where do the teabaggers and Progressives agree? Where? Well, firebaggers join with them when they’re busy opposing specific Obama policy– which is pretty much every Obama policy. Firebaggers have decided that since the teabaggers seem so organized then they must be on the side of good– or would be if they were just “informed”. Bullshit.

Teabaggers aren’t uninformed. If anything, they’re willfully ignorant. They were happy with government waste when a Republican was running it, but as soon as that black Democrat with the funny name was elected they decided they were pissed. Mostly they were pissed because that guy won, but they found so many other reasons to be suddenly overwrought with anger at government spending. Especially the spending that would help other people (social programs and/or HCR).

Teabaggers deny Obama’s very citizenship. They ask for “proof” of his birth– even after seeing that proof. They applaud those brave citizens who legally challenge Obama’s legitimacy. They doubt his parents’ marriage was legal. They call him “the Anti-Christ”, “Manchurian Candidate” and “affirmative action candidate”.

Firebaggers are just pissed because Obama hasn’t invited them into the Whitehouse and/or isn’t the Great Liberal Savior they thought he was going to be (depending on the firebagger doing the bitching). Anyone who doesn’t declare Obama a sellout or Rahm puppet is declared a sellout, Obama-worshipper⁵ and/or paid shill for [insert name of evil government lobby]. They say that we shouldn’t call them “teabaggers” because they’ve got good intentions and ignore the signs that teabaggers carry to their rallies (Obama as a witch doctor anyone?). And since teabaggers are against the same person they are against, they ally themselves with them. They’ve even taken to airing attack ads and doing negative polling against Obama.

Disgusting and pitiful. I believe that the majority of firebaggers are just PUMAs remade. I firmly believe that they would have opposed Obama no matter what stance he would have taken on anything. And I believe their leader(s) is(are) using them in the same way that the teabagger leaders are using the teabaggers. They want power and prestige and donations and are willing to tear down anyone that gets in their way. They are using the anger and disillusionment of some Dems⁶ to their financial advantage. I mean, they didn’t write “Crashing the Gates”, so they had to get on the teevee somehow. Right?

1. Because some people take offense at the term “firebagger” I will use it as much as I can. Pfft.
2. A name which firebaggers now consider “offensive”. What the fuck ever. They named themselves.
3. They named themselves.
4. Except theirs.
5. Straight from the PUMA playbook, by the way.
6. The ones that weren’t fucking paying attention during the campaign.