Dearest Friends:

 
While you know me as “@shoq,” many close friends have always known me as Matt Edelstein. For reasons I’ve published elsewhere, I’ve never confirmed or denied that name, nor anything else said about me. I am an entrepreneur who has invested many years in developing a novel Internet technology that plans to launch later this year. I currently live in Ft Lauderdale, Florida. I do not, contrary to popular belief, work for George Soros, nor live in my mother’s basement. She is elderly, and I moved here simply so one of her children would be closer to her.  I am starting off with this information to demonstrate my sincerity and candor about something very important that I would like to discuss with you.
 
Many of you have known me for years, and have recently heard a nasty voice mail, and thought “How can shoq, whom I have known for so long, sound like a domestic abuser, as so many people are now asserting about him.” Many of my women-friends, often victims of abuse themselves, have told me how hurt they were to hear of this, and urged me to apologize, to get help, and to do something that might help everyone understand, heal, and learn from this ongoing saga.  
 
Today, a brand new friend, herself a victim of severe domestic violence and verbal abuse, came forward and DMed me and said she had followed me for years, and could not reconcile the man behind the tweets with the person being portrayed by the voice messages, and all the vicious tweets and statements made about them. She wanted explanations. In talking to her candidly, I broke down and tearfully made a confession about something no one has yet heard. She stopped me in my tracks and said she was nauseous with disgust, and urged me—no, demanded of me—that I suck in my pride and go public with what I had just told her. 
 
So I would like to do that now, and in so doing, offer several important facts, insights, and explanations. One of them may surprise—or even shock you. Please read all of them before judging me or coming to any conclusions.

First, I apologize to Jane, aka @vdaze, aka Jessica.

I have raged at someone I have known and loved via some telephone calls, which she decided to publish, to the horror of me, my family, my coworkers, my enemies, and many of you.  Such rage is  always wrong, no matter the cause, no matter the person, and no matter the motive. Period.  It was my responsibility to not do it, and I failed in that responsibility. I shouldn’t have done several things:
  • I shouldn’t have name called. That cannot be excused.
  • I shouldn’t have used hateful words. They cannot be excused.
  • I shouldn’t have tried to blamed her for my rage, even if I felt there were good reasons for it at the time. I could have taken a walk, or gotten a drink, or done something to find another way to express my anger. I did not. I  chose to express a fury when I could have chosen otherwise. It was wrong. It cannot be excused.
  • I shouldn’t have mentioned in my blog post below that we had discussed her getting therapy, because that is a classic excuse that abusers make all the time. Even if I might believe it. Even if she might believe it. It cannot be used to justify a rage. It cannot be excused.
  • I shouldn’t have done any of these things. I have thought long and hard about them, and realized that verbal rage is just unacceptable for any reason, at any time, and in any form. 
 
I’m human. I’ve made mistakes. I own them and I must live with them, and I must help myself, or find other help to discover ways that I can change my process and avoid such mistakes again. I should have said all of these things in my very first or my second post below, as some good women friends urged me to do immediately, but I did not. I was stunned, confused, hurt, and angry, and still trying to understand how someone who just weeks ago said that she had loved me was now painting me as this grotesque abuser, discussing intimate details of my life, health, and appearance, on her blog and on Twitter. This resulted in an eruption of angry Twitter streams by women standing up for a victim of abuse. It brought forth small armies of former enemies eager to pile on the abuser.
 
Many of these women, some of them abused in their lives, were compelled to make me admit, apologize, and atone for the abusive call to Jessica.  And based on my behavior in the voicemail alone, as I say above, I deserved it!  And by not immediately owning it and apologizing for it completely, I made Jessica’s narratives easier to catch fire. And catch they did. Many twitter accounts swelled with literally thousands of tweets about restraining orders, police, counseling, hotlines, sickness, hypocrisy, and all manner of empathy tweets that victims of abuse have heard, sent, or been supported by. 
 
Overwhelmed by sadness and anger at this open discussion of my private life, I quickly penned a blog post to explain what was going on. It was one that forgave her and myself for this conflagration, and which I felt was owning the things I had done wrong, but which friends help me see could be perceived as trying to blame her for some of my unacceptable behavior. It’s just never ok to blame a victim, and that was certainly not my intent. So I then updated it with a bit more detail, trying to own more of my behavior, while also trying to not reveal details of our private lives, nor a really big secret: a huge and vital omission in her published story that would almost certainly change many perceptions of her narrative and accusations. But more on that a bit later.
 

Second, I understand why women must speak out and push back against abuse

 
Who can blame these women who rushed to assist Jessica? After all, many know, or have friends who know what it is like to be in a relationship with an abusive person. They know what it is like be near someone that physically intimidates them, scolds them to their face, terrorizes them with acts or threats of violence, stalks them at their work, accosts them at parties, menaces or harms their friends or pets, damages their cars, defaces their property, posts threats on their doors, harasses their families, and relentlessly pursues and intimidates them via phones, the Internet and social networks. They know abuse and abusers and they know it’s a terrible and mendacious crime that most victims must go to great lengths to escape. They often change their phone numbers, homes, friends, schools,  jobs, clothes, and even entire lives just to escape it.  Many of my closest friends sent me emails and DMs, just disgusted that I might be, or be seen as just like “those men” that made the lives of such victims utterly and completely miserable. And indeed, I might have been, but for that big secret.

Third, the “big secret” was the big hole in Jessica’s story

While yes, I raged at her through an answering machine at times, and even exchanged some angry emails,  I never did any one of those other things that victims of domestic/physical abuse experience. Victims who I, through my admitted mistakes, she was able to appear to be one of to so many of her supporters. I never did any of those things.  Not even one. Not even once. Why can I tell you that with such confidence? For one very simple reason. A reason I said might shock you:  
 
I have never laid eyes on Jessica. Not once. Not even by video. Jessica and I have never met. Please let that sink in for a few moments before continuing. I feel that it is absolutely vital and pivotal to understanding the nature and implications of everything that has transpired to date.
 
Yes, this entire massive abuse narrative, this campaign against me has been predicated on a relationship that was entirely virtual from its inception until this very day. We did not so much as have a video chat between us. Everything we know of each other was via Twitter, email, instant message, and telephone. That’s it. It was a cyber-relationship. Period.
 
So why have I not revealed such a crucial and mitigating detail before now?  Because I was embarrassed. I had fallen in love with a woman on the Internet. I wanted us to be together, but she was married. After she separated, she told me it would be at least a year before she could “safely” become openly involved—or live—with someone else. 
 
So I waited, and I waited. But it never came to pass. As we got closer to year’s end, she became less and less willing to discuss actually coming together, and issues and arguments grew more frequent. Our relationship grew chillier and chillier, and much of the joy had turned into endless discussions about almost anything except when we would finally be together. Finally, after so many months of this dysfunctional situation, I told her that I was done.

Fourth, many have been misled

Jessica has never mentioned what I just admitted to you, despite the embarrassment and ridicule it will generate for both of us.  Why on earth would she do that?  Why would she provide such dramatic tales of abuse, threats, and emotional stress to thousands of people over weeks of time, yet omit this one, massively crucial detail that anyone would need to fully understand this drama.  She was never for one single moment in physical danger.  I never showed up at her door, I never followed her, I never threatened to, nor appeared at her place of work, nor threatened her pets, person or identity in any way. I live 1000 miles away, and have since our “relationship” began.  
 
So please now ask yourself this: why wouldn’t she have stated all of this from the beginning in her many blog posts, tweets, and status updates?  For one simple reason: because she was counting on the fact that I would be too embarrassed to tell anyone what I just told you.  Had she done so, her entire abuse narrative would have been debunked from the start, never garnered the support of so many well meaning sympathizers, and largely been reduced to nothing more than the old cliche of, “So Shoq, when did you stop beating your wife?”
 
If Jessica was living in fear, as she so proactively implied to so many, why didn’t she contact the police, why didn’t she block me on Twitter, or email, or skype, or change her phone number. Why did she take none of those common steps that any abuse victim is always counseled to take. As importantly, why instead did she choose to continually badger me and make references to our relationship on Twitter, often viciously and very publicly baiting me with insults and invective?.  Victims of abuse are almost alway too scared to speak out against their abusers. They stay silent. This is how the cycle of abuse works, and why true abusers get away with their crimes over and over again. They do not seek out and promote confrontations with their abusers on Twitter. This was a cyber-relationship, first, last, and always. With a few clicks of her mouse, Jessica could have eliminated me from her life. She continually chose not to, which is entirely uncharacteristic of someone being “abused.”
 
I have always been a fierce advocate for women, their rights, their equality, and their safety. If you don’t believe that, check five years of my Twitter timeline. If you are a victim of domestic violence or abuse, I urge you to seek professional help.  If you need further help from me, I will do what I am best known for on Twitter, and use my friends and contacts to help you.
 
I hope this clarifies this sad chapter in my  life. I hope Jessica heals, and that those who know and like her forgive her for this hurtful deception.  I also hope that I can get my reputation back from my thousands of friends and followers, and restore the trust I have worked hard to earn from friends,  followers, associates, and especially those who have been skeptical of this story and stood by me from the start.  
 
I am a man with some failings. I yearn for love like most of us. I am a dedicated progressive and a passionate American. I have made and admitted to some poor behavior that I will try to learn and grow from. I did a bad thing. I am not a bad person. 
 
Thanks for listening.
.
Sincerely,
 
Matt
 

Related

 

UPDATE

 
Jane, I had hoped the earlier part of this post would end this drama. I said I wouldn’t retaliate. But with your latest ”update” to your blog, where you connected your post to this one, and the many steps you and/or your supporters seem to have taken to help advance a very one-sided narrative via Twitter, you telegraph an intent to continue this jihad against me. And you’ve decided that any stone is fair game, deliberately promoting the old “Shoq-the-bully-abuser-impaler” memes that you knew had  been out there for years, made up by vengeful bloggers and other antagonists who had never even met me.  You once helped debunk those totally undocumented fables, but now you repurpose them and their memes to serve a personal agenda.
 
In so doing, you’ve  empowered every Right wing dimwit or Left wing adversary with salacious ammunition with which to discredit me with their typical false equivalencies. Angry verbal exchanges over 1.5 years of a romance are not evidence of a “hatred of women,” nor a pattern of “abuse,” and you yourself have said as much. Your posts and tweets are a personal prism, but one that is being used to spread a spectrum of vicious distortions that you know are untrue. You’ve even characterized my genuine concern that others would use this public cat fight to find you and try to harm your career as some threat to stalk or harass you. There has been real harm to me from such specious claims, and I wish  you would refrain from making more of them.
 
And no matter when you say they occurred *, openly publishing private recordings of me reacting vehemently during any one or more arguments, with virtually no context, balance or mitigating explanation is grossly unfair and you know it. Most times we’ve had such angry words were unique circumstances, often provoked by 3rd parties (such as Heather C), following bizarre circumstances, or my frustration at your frequent reluctance to discuss issues in any kind of mutually acceptable manner or timeframe.
 
* Update#2 (8/21/12)In an update of Jane's (@vdaze's) blog post, she uses the fact that I was confused about which recording was used to try and discredit everything and anything I have have said here (rather typical of her style). The incongruity in my narrative has a simple explanation. I had been read only the first lines of that voice mail over the phone by a friend. I wrote the first part of this post assuming the call was an angry skype call message which I didn't recall being all that angry, but since I was inebriated at the time, I figured perhaps I'd forgotten how strident they were in the weeks since making them. Trying to know what set her off, I'd placed those calls, which she did not answer (as usual).  As she posted no date and time of the private message initially, it never crossed my mind (nor the person reading me the message) that she—a woman claiming to love me—would be reaching back 8 months simply to illustrate that I had once been verbally abusive on a phone call during a fight. A fight which she stilll conveniently seems to understate the causes and effects of to suit her narratives, which have in the time since this post, and despite my public mea culpa,  revealed itself to be a full scale romantic vendetta, fused and hybridized (quite deliberately) with a multi-directional set of agendas and past dramas.
 
Again that doesn’t excuse my vitriolic anger, but since recordings only reveal my reactions and not what caused them, they naturally work for you among your friends, or anyone disposed to thinking that any form of yelling into a telephone answering machine is evidence of, or suggestive of some larger form of physical or extreme abuse in person. We both know that never happened. 
 
As for your other characterizations of our relationship, we also both know that many of your complaints were because you resented (often with vehemence) that I could call *you* controlling and abusive at times, and urge you to “stop condescending to me like your subordinates” or some Twitter followers that you had much contempt for. We even spoke of you getting counseling for your relentless brow beating of me whenever we had seemingly minor disputes.  None of that made it into your blog narratives. Nor did the 125 lb gorilla in the room, D, “that $%^@*&%  whore as you called her” whom I had started dating “too soon” to suit your sense of propriety after we’d broken up (again).  
 
Shall we now drag her and her daughter into this, too? What about her family? Her co-workers? And what about that husband you promised to divorce soon after we met, but whom you remain married to to this day? And what of your family, or your so very sensitive personal past? How many people, lives and private narratives should be impacted by this unfortunate romantic misfire that we could choose to just walk away from? One where you were no more a victim of me than I was of you. 
 
This public drama started with your public airing of personal matters, calling me a "dysfunctional c___", and other gruesomely nasty invective in about 15 consecutive tweets without even telling me why.  Any inquiry thereafter was deemed “harassment,” affording you total control over your orchestrated public vitriol with no possibility of discussing any of it. You constructed the ugliest rant that you could (which very few people have ever seen), implying  that any vile invective is ok by you in public, but angry voice messages by me in private are out of bounds. Given all of that, I have still not publicly attacked you even once since this began, and our Twitter timelines reflect that. Nor have I done as you have in allowing open comments to supplement your blog, which you’ve let be used by any enemy with mud to throw. 
 
Jane, enough is enough. We are destroying friendships, communities and reputations over a personal dispute at a time of national importance.  I respectfully ask that you let this go now.  Stop pushing our sad affair into unpredictable directions, dragging every willing friend, supporter, white knight, political enemy, and hopeful suitor along for the ride. It’s unseemly, unethical, and entirely one-sided.
 
You’ve had your day in the court of public opinion, generated lots of juicy tidbits to people who clamor for them, and it will now all live on the Internet forever.  You’ve embarrassed me before friends, co-workers, and even my own mother, who is heartsick and anguished over our words. Those bells can’t be unrung. If that was your goal in all of this, you’ve achieved it. But please, let’s now end this gruesome drama and move on with our lives. Please. 
 
I feel that you savaged me in your blog, for whatever reason, and now I’ve had my say above and beyond my first effort below, which tried to rise above it, but rather ineffectively. You can escalate further if you choose, but I am going to try hard to resist and make this my final post on this sadness. We’ve both lost far too much to “win” anything. I am going to try and get back to my work, focus on this election, and try to relearn the art of forgiveness. Of you, of myself, and of us.  I am truly sorry for what so much promise became.
 
As often is the case, a song says it best:  You Go Your Way, I’ll Go Mine.
 
 
End note: I am sorry to my followers, family, friends and co-workers who were exposed to this ugly Twitter soap opera. Since it was done so publicly, I had a choice of letting it stand completely unanswered, or respond with just enough to reveal it for what it was: a romantic relationship that ended badly, with the oh so typical two sides of any such story feeling harm, either real or perceived.
 
 

 


Orginal Post

 

A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable. Robert Fripp

 

Dear Jane*,

You shared our lives in public. I don’t know why you chose to do that, and it saddens me beyond words that you felt you had to. Especially since you yourself had always had such contempt for people who would do that.  But I loved you once, and I still have much love and respect for you now. I can forgive you for doing that to you and to us. I hope can forgive me for my inexcusable tone and words in that final voice mail.  It was loud, intense, and used words I deeply regret. I am so sorry for them, and I wish I could take them back, but I can’t. I was  furious. No, that’s wrong. I was totally and completely hurt and angry at you for taking our private matters into a public venue like Twitter as you had.  And I was also quite drunk. After repeatedly asking you to explain what had suddenly angered you, knowing my countless enemies are always trying to game us and destroy me, I got no responses at all. Nothing.  We’d sent emails back and forth that day, and suddenly, out of nowhere, you yelled in ALL CAPS that I was a liar and should never contact you again. To this day, I still don’t know what happened. How can I? You won’t tell me, and your friends won’t tell me. I remain in the dark as of this very writing. There is no greater pain than seeing such a long and mostly endearing relationship reduced to this rubble of riddles with no explanation or resolution .

But I finally did stop trying to reach out for an answer, as you asked. I gave up entirely. But a few days later, I came home from a party to see you and your friends gleefully tweeting smears, distortions and innuendo about me/us into your twitter stream, even engaging old enemies to help you do it.  I was so disgusted, so outraged, and so hurt that I dashed off some emails to express my disgust to you. I reminded you of how worried you often were that our enemies would track you down by making yourself this visible.  I should have stopped there. Instead, after a friend of yours I’d contacted to clarify what was happening shut me off abruptly, I Skyped you and let you know just how I was feeling in extremely bitter and angry tones that no one should have to hear.  Again, I am very, very sorry for my choice of words, and that tone. There was no excuse for my channeling my anger in that way, other than that I am human and make mistakes. But you know that about me, as I know it about you.

I still don’t know what set you off, and you seem to feel no obligation to tell me. Did you feel you would get some kind of satisfaction by putting our lives on display before our twitter feeds, our families, our friends, and our co-workers? You did that before my voice message. And you’re now still doing it long after.  But none of that excuses my message at all.  But neither does my message excuse humiliating us in public for no rational reason that I, nor anyone else can understand. Still, I will not retaliate for that. That is a promise. I will not share details of your life, just to “get even.” There is nothing to be gained but more pain, and I care about you too much to hurt you more than you already are.

I hope our friends will see this as an intense exchange between intense people that spun out of control, largely thanks to unfortunate circumstances, my appalling reaction to them, the silliness of Twitter at times, the unrelenting nature of enemies and trolls, and the volatile and unpredictable nature of emotions. Especially in an information vacuum whenever love is involved.

I wish the angry exchanges had never happened. I wish we could be back in another time and place together. I wish you well. I hope someday we can find mutual forgiveness for our failings and our failures and be friends again. If you want to call me and discuss it, I assure you it will be civil. Perhaps then we can all move on from this grim chapter of our lives.

*The name is fictitious to protect your identity.

 

Everybody Hurts by R.E.M.

 

 

 

This morning, I tweeted this disturbing and sometimes insightful, but ultimately maddening, guilt-ridden sanctimony dressed up as constructive criticism in  op-ed by Steve Almond in the NYTimes. Wanting to think more about it, the best I could say at the time was this tweet:

RT ‏@Shoq: I've been scolded for saying we mock rather than advance ideas. Still, this a mea culpa from a liberal Fox watcher j.mp/KXyDQR
I shared it with my good friend, Joy-Ann Reid (@theReidReport), Managing Editor at TheGrio.com, and a Miami Herald columnist. As usual, within hours, she'd let loose with blistering critique that captured much of what irked me when I read Almond's piece the first time. You can read her post here. 

On any given day, I agree with almost everything Joy says, and this day was no different, for the most part. But I did have some concerns about dismissing the entirety of Almond's essay too casually, feeling that as is often the case, that all elusive truth may lie somewhere between two poles.  So I wrote this to Joy in response, and felt I'd blog it. Just because I can.

 

Thank you joy,

You have told the other side I've been wrestling with so much better than I could.  But I am still torn because while my reaction this morning was just like yours (and I tweeted about it), after reading it again, I am still plagued by the nagging sense that he (and Karoli) are also more than partly right; that we do give them too all far much attention in a meta sense. While, as you point out, there are damn good reasons do that, it's become such a reactionary passion on the left, that it empowers all the lefty demagogues (those self-flagellating masters of the liberal universe), while generally sucking all the energy from the progressive room. There's just not too much remaining for the political process (which serves the status quo nicely). I see this progressive anger-fatigue every day, and it's really worrying me. I see it worrying others, too. Obama can lose, and lose convincingly. And the Senate may go with him.  We all know this. And I think all the anger-merchandising, so well played by the corporate media (and the liberal and conservative industrial complexes, as well), are to a large degree distracting us from really focusing on shaping messages and getting out that vital progressive congressional and presidential vote, without which, we're probably just doomed.

But what the writer doesn't get right at all (besides the ridiculous title) is that he has no real end game; he never discusses where all that surplus attention that he wants to conserve would go if recovered. He hints at it, but so minimally, that he's implying that just turning the other ear and merely showing up to vote will mitigate the damage that a highly cultivated incivility is now doing to us.  It won't. All the polite rhetorical salon parties he imagines won't make the smallest dent in the Koch/Fox audience axis, and they still vote far more reliably than we do.

No, as you point out, ignoring and negotiating just doesn't work. We have to defund, deflect, or somehow denude their omnipotence; strip it from our politics and culture with a combination of strategies that ignore the more cynical of the noisy megaphones, while pushing back effectively against the most influential of them, denying them social and financial currency where possible In the absence of bigger plans, I am going to keep on with efforts like StopRush, which may yet show that market forces can greatly impact how these influencers really operate on and against all of us.

It's all I can do… for now.

 

Related

 

 

 

 

Ari Sharpiro woke me up with this eye opener in my ears this morning. Not so easy listening Don't miss it:

 

The American Dream is a crucial thread in this country's tapestry, woven through politics, music and culture.

Though the phrase has different meanings to different people, it suggests an underlying belief that hard work pays off and that the next generation will have a better life than the previous generation.

But three years after the worst recession in almost a century, the American Dream now feels in jeopardy to many.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/29/153513153/american-dream-faces-harsh-new-reality

See important update at the end.

Forgive my link-baited title, but it was just as contrived, gamed, and inaccurate as this one from Paul Farhi in today’s Washington Post:

Limbaugh sees heat over comments turn down to a simmer

That awful bit of non-reporting spawed these (and other) derived items from so-called “journalists” sucking down free content, with no fact checking whatever:

Rush Limbaugh Is Doing Just Fine

Then of course, we have this gem from Rush’s #1 astroturfed professor at Cornell Law, @leginsurrection, who was all too happy to use the crappy reporting from the so-called “Liberal Washington Post” (owned by arch-conservative, Donald Graham).

#StopRush turns into #MediaMattersStopped

And finally, never to be outdone in the lame department, the DailyBeast jumps in:

Advertisers Stick With Limbaugh
 

Now of course, paid flacks like Cornell’s “Professor Jacobson” are expected to use any kind of drivel the MSM writes to support their astroturfed hysteria.  But the Post and the Atlantic wire? This kind of reporting is absurd, and a prime example of why our media (and nation) are such a mess. 

Since the Washington Post cannot even manage a typical permalink  to specific comments, I have posted my response to Farhi’s reckless reporting here so you don’t have to scroll through 1000 comments to find it:

 
I would like to know which of the 161 dropping or avoiding sponsors listed here http://sn.im/stoprush Mr. Farhi actually contacted. I would wager the answer is zero. If he had, he would know that the only known sponsors to “trickle back” are a single regional sponsor that Rush’s PR flack, Brian Glicklich had CLAIMED wanted to come back (TheSleepTrain) in an LA Times puff piece, and TaxResolutions, a company that never really stopped to begin with (they just said they did to milk some free attention from Twitter). 
 
That’s it. And readers will note that virtually no research of any other kind is indicated in this article. This kind of reporting is merely passing along Premiere’s propaganda. And it does so with almost nothing but conjecture and suppositions based on what the author was obviously told, and not what he himself investigated. Farhi simply absorbed a robust spin-spew of misdirection from Limbaugh and/or Premiere which we have seen coming from his bots and paid proxies all week. Yes, the author called Carusone, and probably spent all of 15 minutes with him to pretend he was actually doing journalism. Anyone who knows Carusone’s efforts knows that what is said here is barely a fragment of the facts concerning this campaign, which can be heard more fully on any of his many radio interviews. In short, this is article comes off as a thinly-veiled PR favor to ClearChannel, a major media corporation which probably has many overlapping relationships with the Washington Post and/or its advertisers. 
 
It is also important to note that while sustaining any “outrage” can be challenging, this StopRush campaign has also coincided with the Trayvon Martin case, which has sucked the oxygen out of most stories emanating from the left in the past two weeks, so naturally some cooling of engagement would be evident. But as someone who sees the engagement of volunteers very close-up, I can tell you that the women, men, and families that Rush has offended aren’t going away, nor are they forgetting his egregious and vile remarks about Sandra Fluke in particular, and women in general. They are simply sharing their passions with other important issues of conservative hatreds which Rush can take great pride in nurturing in today’s America. They are not backing off or backing down. 
 
Mr. Farhi, please do just a bit of homework and update this story with real facts that you have actually verified, and not the convenient and self-serving spin of ClearChannel or their proxies. In short, do your job. 
 
Thank you.

Posted at 11:10 on 3/29/2012

Note: A look through the comments of that post will reveal literally dozens of astroturf bots, come of them posting at least 10 times. The WaPost makes no effort to screen such astroturf, nor even limit it to one or two comments per article. Thus, the astroturfers ensure that their gamed spew will always turn up in the list of most recent comments.

Update

In my haste to respond to the Washington Post, I neglected to point out that the author DID update his story. He removed a completely erroneous misquote where he claimed that Carusone had said “only 5 sponsors had dropped the Limbaugh show.” In fact, Carusone tweeted that after correcting them, the author updated the post and simply deleted the entire misquote. This was more shoddy journalism. The entire premise of the story—now so widely repeated—revolved around that one ludicrously sloppy misquote. The Post should have posted the words “Updated,” and corrected it. They still should.

Please visit http://sn.im/stoprush for more news and information about the #stopRush effort.

Help us push back against this kind of propaganda by retweeting this post. Thanks!!

It is our eternal shame as country that such intellectually weak sauce as Ayn Rand should attain an almost mythical status among the very people who should revile her the most. But attain it, she has, and it’s got to be pushed back on. Vigorously.

I have shrieked for years that if something wasn’t done to disembowel the mystique of this legendary mistanthrope, her fast food fascism would nourish future generations of video game addicts who are more far comfortable reacting to ideas than having or ever questioning them.

While many a social writer has taken stabs at her over the years, George Monboit has carved up this phony icon with a economical precision in a all-too-brief essay entitled:

How Ayn Rand’s Bizarre Philosophy Made the New Right so Toxic
Rand’s psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats.

Without mincing any words, George gets to the point straightaway:

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Of course, no discussion of Ayn Rand can even begin without mention of her most famous manifesto, the ponderously overwrought, yet absolutely seminal work for the “Only Job Creators Matter” Tea party crowd:

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

If you never really knew this, it is from her wretched political screeds that too much of the churlish partisan drivel emanating from Fox News, Redstate.com, TheBlaze, Rush Limbaugh, and most other celebrated wingnut emporiums of hate and mindless greed is so often derived.

And turning a blind eye toward its appeal to the uneducated and culturally embittered has helped lead us down a path of pure evil. And the trail guide on this trip into an ahistorical black hole, from which a healthy American middle class may never emerge? Why none other than that pied piper of objectivist voodoo economics, Mr. Alan Greespan:

There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as “the ‘greed’ of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer”. As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a “superlatively moral system”.

While Monboit gets right to the core of this cancerous legend very efficiently,  one essay can’t counteract the impact of her screeds on our culture, if not our planet. Recognizing the power that this seducative pap has had with people who get their world history from cereal boxes, I’d like to create a site that helps educators teach high school students why her rancid polemical fiction is not reasoned political philosophy, nor even valuable social commentary.

Rand’s works are little more than the angry ravings of a cold-war era, anti-collectivist relic who knew how to make mean-spirited cliches into compelling narratives for people who have rarely read more than one book. It’s the perfect propaganda for a dumbed down electorate that values feelings over facts, and will alway high-five some plutocratic diatribe, while being outwardly dismissive and hostile toward anything bordering on mature pluralism and dialectic process.

Progressives cannot laugh at this kind of thing any longer. It has much too much traction already, and it’s only growing. If you want to help me discuss how we might make tools that can mitigate some of her ruinous impact on younger—or just vulnerable—minds, if not our entire culture, please post a comment, or contact me on Twitter.

Related

 

 

I dislike using the “rape metaphor,” because I agree with most feminists who believe that when it is overused, or used inappropriately, it trivializes the seriousness of rape.

In this case, however, I will rely on Webster’s dictionary, which defines these two relevant words thusly:

Rapeany act of sexual  intercourse that is forced upon a person.

Intercourse sexual relations or a sexual coupling

I am hardly the first person to point out that the rape assignation is not a metaphorical one. And if any issue deserved to use language, as George Bernard Shaw said, “to the utmost possible degree,” it is this one.

This (still forming) primer will try to give you some key facts, sites, and stories you need to know about to stay current on this important issue. 

Note: this is a work in progress, and there are some fuzzy facts about all of this I am still trying to clarify. If you have something to add, please it to tweet me, or post it as a comment below.

So What is this about?

If House Bill 462, The Virginia House of Delegates has decided that forcible rape  is a perfectfully appropriate humiliation to impose on any women seeking an abortion for any reason. This bill is now being reconciled with the Senate Bill 484.

And in a separate but somewhat related bill, they have also declared that they are now learned scientists, qualifed to determine what a “person” is by asserting that a person’s life “begins at conception.” This is a cynical ploy has been unfolding for years, driven by vicious anti-choice conservatives across the nation.  They want to make this pseudo-fact a law in most states as a precedent for more laws to come. Laws that will make any form of pregnancy termination a “crime against a person.”

You can read about both of these atrocities from better writers than me.  What’s important right now is this:

Before these appalling violations of women, conceived by a staunch conservative enemy of women’s rights can become Virginia laws…

The ultrasound bill must first be approved by the Virginia Senate.

If it is approved, the only remaining option is:

    Pressure Governor Bob McDonnell

Note: he current status of the two bills, and efforts to block them, are very confusing:

This Virgina-Pilot article explains away some of the confusion, but creates more. Remember, there are two separate bills. Once concerns Personhood, and the other, Ultrasound testing.

I am going to look for more clarifications, and then post it, but regardless of the actual status of these bills, both of them should be voted down, abandoned, or vetoed. So proceed to the actionable stuff below with that in mind.

To Learn More, Follow Those Following The Story

Background

Similar Actions Across America

Petitions And Other Actions You Can Sign or Join

The Komen for the cure backlash was largely driven by online petitions, many of which are delivered in person. Petitions DO work, and you should sign as many as you can.

Important Sites

   Facebook

Related Articles

Relevant Hashtags

  • #Virginia #fem2 #abortion #VA
  • #RepublicanRapists #VirginiaBumperStickers (created by Shoq)

Related

 

 

I stumbled across this interview which Sarah Jaffe conducted with Steven Lerner, a traditional labor organizer, and was amazed I hadn’t noticed it when it dropped at Alternet. I’ve been looking for cogent essays that can put #OccupyWallStreet into perspective for progressives who still hear “Unions” or “labor movement,” and see Norma Rae standing on a table and waving a union sign.

Labor organizing is something most of us take for granted, but it’s a very challenging thing to do, and it’s why some get very short with #OWS, feeling that the upstart  should be more respectful of, if not outwardly more derivative of traditional organizing. But as Lerner points out, it is precisely because it’s not those things that brings the greatest learning and promise to Labor, and to much larger Progressive ambitions in general.

This terrific interview will educate people with very little background on Labor issues, just why organizing has been such a challenge for the past century, and particularly in the last 30 years. Until recently, it’s been going after corporate management, and not the people who really drive the economy.  #Ows provides a model where the fight is taken to those most responsible for our national malaise and economic meltdown.

The 99% Versus Wall Street: Stephen Lerner on How We Can Mobilize To Be the Greedy 1%’s Worst Nightmare

Earlier this year, long before Occupy Wall Street turned Zuccotti Park into Liberty Plaza, Stephen Lerner, a longtime labor organizer with SEIU and mastermind of the Justice for Janitors campaign, wrote in New Labor Forum of “large-scale sit-ins, occupations, and other forms of nonviolent civil disobedience that must inevitably overcome court injunctions and political pressures.” Read more

The entire interview is vital reading, from this nugget forward:

There were many reasons why I think it worked, but one of them was that we had an analysis of who had power. In addition to the community organizing and the many different things the campaign did, the strikes and sit-ins, none of that would’ve worked if we hadn’t directed the campaign toward those with the greatest power—the people who controlled the real estate that janitors were cleaning.

For me, this interview rekindled some of my initial fire about #ows. I had flipped my position from initial skepticism, to embracing it, then back to a cautious observer posture.  There is still much to like about this nascent but still very fragile idea for a movement, and I would really like to think it can become something that doesn’t change skin quite so often, as it takes on the look and feel of whatever local Occupy event had last captured the media’s attention. Even so, I think Lerner may be overly optimistic about our ADHD-afflicted media, and how difficult it may be to bring it all back to life after a winter in hibernation. But I am encouraged by the fact that he has that optimism. 

I am also still very skeptical of the anarchic modeling that still characterizes many of #ows’s projects and planning (loosely speaking). It has strengths that need better understanding, but also weaknesses that need more open discussion without the contentiousness and acrimony that too many experience when trying to discuss the movement on a conceptual level with it’s more devoted and visible advocates.

But if enough people with Lerner’s understanding and savvy can stay involved, and nudge #ows toward less abstract, more concrete actions that middle class folks can relate to, I think there is a real chance that a permanent, sustainable #ows presence can emerge. One that can attract and hold sufficient leaders, organization, resources, and participation to sculpt an organic and sustainable organization that can evolve into a much better advocacy movement than Unions – with their necessary ties to management – could ever achieve on their own.

Before the #ows zealots start hurling rocks at me, let me say clearly that it is not my position that more Union people are needed to take over #ows. Only that more smart and seasoned activists, with rich, diverse and relevant experience to share, must ultimately get involved in the direction and planning of wherever it is that the #ows endeavor is to become. And sooner, not later.

Related

Occupy: Successes and Challenges


I'm collecting articles and videos that examine many of the key problems facing Progressivism in the United States. I grow weary of tweeting them individually, so I thought I would combine them here. Where appropriate, I sometimes link to introductory blog posts which I felt might properly frame or augment the work. I also toss in a much older post on Conservatism… because  I can. If you like this sort of compendium, you may also may want to see my Rants & Primers page. I hope you will please pass them on via the Tweet button below.

Scroll the Table of Contents to see all the titles. Click the bold & underlined title above each blurb to read the essay.

Conservative Southern Values Revived: How a Brutal Strain of American Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America ^

by Sara Robinson

This is now my number one must read on this page and is likely to remain so for quite some time. It's a brief and concise primer on just what the cultural forces have been at play for 400 years, which have led to this rank devolution of the American experiment.  A demotion from which will probably never recover until we fight a more honest Civil War; one that addresses the enemy''s true nature and motives, and not merely the digestible political ploys and pretexts of the day, as we experienced in the 1860s.

It is No Mystery: The Real Reason Conservatives Keep Winning ^

by Joe Brewer

I am much happier when Brewer focuses on things like this, rather than trying to persuade me that merely playing with words and "frames" will change anything.

Have you ever wondered why it is that Progressives repeatedly lose ground in American politics? We almost always have the facts on our side. The experts agree with us. Hell, a lot of us are the experts. And yet history clearly shows that Conservatives have the best political game in town. They dominate political discourse, establishing which frames shape the most important issues of the day. 

What’s going on here? Why is it that Conservatives are so good at winning and Progressives produce a lackluster resistance at best? The answer comes from a fundamental insight from evolutionary biology. Stated simply, it goes like this:

When two groups compete, the one with the most social cohesion wins in the long run.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. ^

By Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein

Few articles like this have ever been written in the history of American politics. And the book from which it comes is an extremely important read.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition

Land of Promise^

by Michael Lind

Let's stop with the obsolete Left vs Right labels, which just confuse people, and mean less and less as this battle goes on.  Conservatives and Liberals are basically in a duel to the death over which two philosophical outlooks should prevail: The Jeffersonian or the Hamiltonian views of government. This is a must read book, but this article gives you a taste of it.

“But that would not be true,” he continues. “What is good about the American economy is largely the result of the Hamiltonian developmental tradition, and what is bad about it is largely the result of the Jeffersonian producerist school.”

Hamiltonian development built the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, the land-grant universities and the Interstate highway system. In the process, the United States became a giant, interconnected market, a place where companies like Standard Oil, General Motors, John Deere and Sears Roebuck could thrive. The government — and the American military in particular — also played the most important role in financing innovation at its early stages. The industries that produced the jet engine, the radio (and, by extension, the television), radar, penicillin, synthetic rubber and semiconductors all stemmed from ­government-financed research or procurement. The Defense Department literally built the Internet.

How Ralph Nader’s Sins Set Trayvon Martin’s Killer Free^

The Powell Memo is still not fully understood by far too many Americans—especially on the Left.  Jonathan Alter frames it all quite perfectly here. If you have never seen the entire Powell Memo, do so after you read this introduction to it.  You will have a clearer understanding of how just how a dangeous conservative extremism has managed to seize control of America

^

By Michael Kazin

You just can't understand where the American Left is now,  unless you really understand where it was, and how it got here. Michael Kazin is an historian, and long-term observer of the Left, its expectations, its successes, and its more recent wallowing in failure.  This piece is essential reading. In discussing it, RedEarth at Democratic Underground writes:

The liberal triumph of the 1930s was in fact rooted in decades of eloquent oratory and patient organizing by a variety of reformers and radicals against the evils of “monopoly” and “big money.”

Sadly, that triumph has been all but obliterated by a Left that assumed it had won the broader economic war, and set out to win every cultural war on its agenda. The impact was to dilute its ranks, obfuscate its purpose, and minimize its power.  We must get it back.

How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics^

By Andrew Sullivan

Sometimes it takes a conservative to explain Obama's long game strategy to progressives, who have never been very patient (see next essay too)

 But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?^

By Jonathan Chait (Introduced and augmented by Bob Cesca)

Former New Republic editor, Jonathan Chait explains a basic fact: Liberals have always been dissatisfied with the Democratic presidents they elect, and then mythologize them after they leave power.  He details how modern liberals are ignorant or unwilling to look at those presidencies as a mix of some successes, and a whole bunch of failures, yet still posture as if all those disappointing white presidents should still be the measuring stick for our only black one.  I don't feel he gets into just how much of this national liberal malaise is actually promoted by a very small cadre of liberal bloggers and the "professional left."  Take away Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher

Related:

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals^

By Tim Wise

This is simply a must read. It not only debunks Ron Paul as anything like a serious option for progressives, but he destroys ridiculous pseudo progressive rationales from people like Glenn Greenwald that pretends he has anything to offer them at all:

I want those of you who are seriously singing Paul’s praises, while calling yourself progressive or left to ask what it signifies — not about Ron Paul, but about you — that you can look the rest of us in the eye, your political colleagues and allies, and say, in effect, “Well, he might be a little racist, but…

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals

President as Piñata^

By Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times

Kristof always comes around to making the big observation when it most counts. If liberals don't recognize who the real enemy is (radical conservatism), and soon, we're all in for some pretty rough water ahead:

"In this economic crisis, Obama will face the same headwinds. That should provide a bracing warning to grumbling Democrats: If you don’t like the way things are going right now, just wait."

Health Insurers Now Have To Take Their Medicine^

By Karoli

Despite the best efforts of Jane Hamsher, and all the other professional left demagogues who have torn it down, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) had a very big time-bomb inserted into it. One that was too wonky to even be understood by the media, and most of the left taken in by all the "sell out" narratives which polluted our national health care dialog. Read here just how the ACA was always designed to eventually change our health care system forever by deconstructing the very financial appeal of private health insurance.

What if Obama Loses?  Imagining the consequences of a GOP victory.^

Compendium of Essays Assembled By Washington Monthly Magazine

"But there’s also a widespread assumption that extreme positions taken in the primaries will fade in the general election as candidates “move to the center,” and will disappear entirely once the serious business of governing begins. Surely President Newt Gingrich would not get rid of child labor laws. Surely President Perry would not seek to eliminate three cabinet departments.

 

We don’t think that this year, with this GOP, those assumptions are warranted. And so we asked a distinguished group of reporters and scholars to think through the hitherto unthinkable: What if one of these people actually wins?"

Christopher Hitchens, Glenn Greenwald, and the War of Ideas^

By A. Jay Adler

It is no secret that I find the overread and overrated blogger Glenn Greenwald to be a pretentious phony and rather an insult to a long tradition of progressive thinkers and writers with whom too many other overpaid pundits mistakenly associate him. He doesn't discuss ideas, he flogs political demons as a career objective, upbraids government and chief executives for sport, and continually masks whatever emotional monsters compel him to lash out at his growing numbers of critics, such as yours truly.  Why should we care? Because his thinly disguised, poorly formed libertarian agenda, and vicious attacks on Democrats (and anyone in power) are often taken seriously by a growing sea of 3rd-rate pundits writing way outside their weight class. He provides them with easy polemical diatribes mixed with tendentious word salad that provides them with rich and controversial content they can report on, rarely bothering to vet it for facts or relevance.  If it bleeds it leads and Greenwald's prose drips with the blood he drains out of any public figure or action he chooses to gut with his digital pen. And he has a famous habit of trying to badger and browbeat his critics all over the internet with shrill accusations of corrupt motive, egregious malice, or any one of several pet forms of bad faith. Often his more scholarly critics will risk accusations of cowardice, simply because they resent his uncivil and intellectually dishonest manner of discourse. His popularity (at least until this year) says far more about our vanishing standards for thoughtful writers than it says about his modest intellectual stature. It is a continuing shame that so few writers with intellectual firepower will take him on as forcefully as this one does.

The author of this essay is a Professor of English at Los Angeles Southwest College. But from this profile you can clearly see why he can so easily dissect Greenwald. He's a real human being, with rich life experiences, who can discuss politics and philosophy in the context of his — and our — lives.  If you read Greenwald much, you know there is no life in anything he writes about. His words are acerbic, glum, and dispiriting. His common goal is to paint incendiary and dehumanizing portrayals of anyone who has ever sought to serve in government.  He never has his own expertise or solutions to bring to his narratives. The goal is to always tear down someone else, and drive his readers into pitchforked frenzies of ideological zeal.  He does it so well that his screeds will suck all the oxygen from the national conversation whenever he drops a new one at Salon.com, the Guardian.co.uk, or whichever venue is giving him space that day.

To some minds, including mine, he is a viciously judgmental person with no real beliefs to be found outside of the palpable hatred he exhibits for the powerful people who control the nation he left (he now lives mostly in Brazil). He writes manipulatively, mostly to advance himself and whatever agenda he rationalizes in his own head (he never writes of any goals or objectives for himself or society, except in the broadest possible terms that can never be challenged by any self respecting liberal), until the topic has been exhausted in the media. When challenged, he is lightning fast in responding with a tweet or a blog comment that avoids any response to the criticism, deflecting with some shrill label for his accuser like "cultist!" or "mentally deranged sycophant!," or some other churlishness that would embarrass him if serious people were paying as much attention as they should be. Once he's milked his subject for a few weeks, often distracting the entire nation with it, he drops it like a stone and moves on to his next equally vitriolic contrivance. He is the anti-government, anti-social, and anti-joy blogger, who does nothing to help America battle its way back from its slide into the radical conservatism that has consumed it, choosing instead to be a high profile careerist lobbing spitballs at the powerful from the comfort of his not-very-cheap seats in Rio de Janerio.

After seven years of getting by with very little real criticism, many are finally coming to see just how Glenn Greenwald operates, and how fragile his intellectual stature really is. Hopefully, this essay will be the first of many to take a swing at his glass jaw. I found it brilliant.

Proud To Be A Liberal^

By Brian Elroy McKinley

Excellent overview of some of the most misunderstood (and misrepresented) aspects of Liberalism, and why it's always been seen as sitting at the very base of American values (according to almost any non-partisan historian or political scientist).

^

By David Frum (Introduced and commented on by @shoq)

Former Bush speechwriter, David Frum explains why his precious Republican party and much of conservatism have devolved into a trade fair for ideological and personality marketing.  The takeaway from this is that these are not responsible people, are sociologically reckless, and are incapable of anything like what we once thought governing was supposed to be about.

Note: Mediamatter's Jamison Foser has urged me many times to see Frum as a manipulative phony quarterback who routinely fakes left, but runs right, blowing a lot of pseudo-moderate smoke to steer Republicans toward his preferred (only slightly less crazy) candidates such as Mitt Romney. I realize there may be a lot of that in Frum's motivations, but that doesn't mean some of his analysis is not on-point, nor useful to the left for its indictment of so many aspects of this Republican noise machine run amok.  Read his take on Frum here.

The Professional left^

by Rootless_e, ThePeoplesView.net

A good introduction to the professional left, and why many of us feel it's hurting Progressivism and America.

Fight the People: 40 years and counting of left wing failure in America^

by Rootless_e

Progressives vs. the President^

by Bob Cesca, Blogger

Bob is one of the few bloggers from the glory years of progressive blogging whom I find myself in agreement with most of the time. That's partly due to our similar pragmatic bent, and partly because he's a lot smarter and more eloquent than I am.  Bob was a front-line blogger when the American left was duking it out over Obama, Clinton and Edwards in the primaries, and knows first hand that most of the so-called Progressive left never supported Barack Obama in the first place. Most of them were John Edwards supporters. And yeah, that judgment worked out well for us, eh?  Below are some other must read posts from Bob that are well worth the read by anyone who wants to more clearly understand where so much of this misplaced anger at Obama really comes from, and how it gets memed all over the Internet, often with very destructive effects on broader progressive narratives, interests and goals:

Has American-Style Conservatism Become a Religion?^

by Joshua Holland, Alternet

Josh is one of the most even-handed, level-header journalists writing today. This essay is a must read to grasp the forces at work inside the often overlapping Conservative and Republican machines.

What is Conservatism and What Is Wrong With It?^

By Philip E. Agre

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

How Bullshit Magically Turns Into Fact^

By @Karoli

My good friend Karoli takes on a topic that has consumed both of us, and our friends, for years: how the entire angry political blogosphere, whether right, left or libertarian, seems to need to magically transform bullshit into fact.  If you like this essay, you are sure to enjoy these other work of hers, each hitting a different bullseye on a different target, but all on the same shooting range of social justice.

Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’^

By Joy Ann Reid

I continually point out that I think Joy is one of America's best political analysts working today. Here she completely guts the ridiculous assertion, so often made by disaffected liberals, that President Obama squandered huge progressive majorities that he never actually had.

List of Liberal Achievements that Made America a Great Nation ^

By Shoq Value

They pretty much speak for themselves.

How I Left The Left ^

By CitizenK (Blogger)

"It's an article of faith among the left that its harsh — and often brainless and naive — criticism of President Obama puts it squarely in line with the left wing "insurgencies" (as Katrina Vanden Heuvel wrote) that pushed Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to the great reforms of the New Deal and the Great Society. This might be a fair point if it bore any actual relationship to reality."

George Carlin on The America Dream^

I often like to discuss the difference between diagnosing a problem, and treating one. George never spent much time on the latter, but when he engaged in the former, few could match his brilliance.

Why I am Not Disappointed by President Obama^

By Jake Lamar

On October 8, 2011, Democrats Abroad France held an event titled "Voices for Obama" at the Nikki Diana Marquandt Gallery in Paris. One of the speakers was the American author Jake Lamar

Journalists Swing The Tire. ^

by prolefeedTV

A VERY important short video about how our precious Fourth Estate is now little more than a yard sale. But hey, and least there's a swing in the yard!

A Progressive Mission Statement: Positive Goals to Move Progressives Forward^

by Milt Shook

My friend Milt has a gift of making the complicated sound simple. But then, some things are simple to start with, such as most of his rather intuitive bullet points as listed here.

The Rise of the New Global Elite^

by Chrystia Freeland

F. Scott Fitzgerald was right when he declared the rich different from you and me. But today’s super-rich are also different from yesterday’s: more hardworking and meritocratic, but less connected to the nations that granted them opportunity—and the countrymen they are leaving ever further behind.

Why Obama hasn’t closed Guantánamo camps^

But Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives anywhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit the release of a detainee to another country.

See Also

See update below

Last night…

journalist and commentator, GoldieTaylor told a remarkable story to @CNN’s Don Lemon. She was inspired to tell it by the grotesque story of accused predator, former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

She not only told of the horror of her own abuse, and that of other high school cheerleader classmates at the hands of a high school football coach, but even decided to “out” her tormentor’s identity, as well.   This added act of courage makes her story all the more special, because so few victims ever do that. And she decided to do it knowing full well it may have serious legal consequences. She sounds fully prepared for those, even welcoming of them.

I haven’t asked Goldie whether it was planned or not, but around 1:15 pm yesterday, she just started tweeting her story on Twitter, almost as a preview of what she would discuss on @CNN last night. As so often happens on Twitter, her thread gained traction almost immediately, and many thousands were transfixed as her history unfolded like a painfully grim fairy tale. I was on the phone at the time, but was seeing random remarks pointing to the thread, and only later did I fully learn about what had happened.

While Goldie is always eloquent and insightful on TV, I thought everyone should see the original tweets as they unfolded on Twitter. So I asked my ever-useful friend @dvnix to pull the tweets together into a contiguous story, minus some extraneous tweets that didn’t seem essential to her tale.  He graciously did so, and you can now see Goldie’s story unfold as so many did before she went on TV to tell it verbally, as she did again on @TheLastWord, and probably will again a few hundred more times going forward.

Goldie’s Story, as told on Twitter.

Stories like Goldie’s need telling…

and too few journalists with the skills to tell them this well ever come forward to tell them.  We need more people with such courage, and not just in matters of child abuse.  Whether in the form of domestic spousal abuse, rape, workplace discrimination, or even the cultural economic abuse that Occupy Wall Street is dramatizing, we’re all enduring different forms of abuse at the hands of many abusers.  And we all need to find an inner strength to step up, step forward, speak out, act out, and start to change whatever status quo that abuses us. Silence is a mask that evil wears defiantly. It must be ripped away so that justice can show its face.

Thank you Goldie, for tearing one off for us.

To help Goldie’s story get out, your RT of this post using the Tweet button below is much appreciated.*

Updates

As you might imagine, the accused coach has lawyered up.

References

* Note: I don’t carry any kind of advertising on this site.  I ask for retweets only in the interests of promoting the issues or injustices I cover on this site from time to time.  If you want to follow me on twitter, my handle is simply, @shoq.