TL; DR -- update from the Front

I used to love the internet.

I used to spend hours and hours... it was the most magical place to me.

Around about 2007, I joined some email lists that started as political but ended up (in the space of a couple of years) as entirely too personal. My experience ended badly, with all manner of bloodletting. Even after I left these lists, the bloodletting continued with the remaining participants. So, it wasn't me. It was the lists themselves; it seemed inevitable. Since 1998, I have participated in message/bulletin boards, email lists, google groups, all of that... and most have ended badly. I have witnessed this again and again and again.

Why? Real-life connections don't always end badly.

In fact, most just 'fade away'--in stark contrast to the vicious break-ups of the online groups.

On tumblr, this constant bloodletting and public evidence of following/unfollowing (constant measures of 'popularity') is standard operational procedure. I have been eviscerated publicly numerous times for (example) wanting to discuss whether "trigger warnings" are a good or bad thing (PS: they're bad) or why so many tumblrites seem to believe John Lennon is the worst white man to have ever lived. They trash Lennon far more than they do Ted Cruz, for instance.

My abject terror at what tumblr and Reddit says about the youth of today, has been a major aspect of my disillusionment with the net, since they are its primary users.

Baby-boomers' parents worried that we were insane radicals, but *I* worry that the kids of today are too afraid to leave the basement. They say they are "radicals" and actually believe they are more radical than we ever were, since they watch some wild-ass porn and purport to believe some wild-ass stuff, and perhaps on one level, that is true. But as we know, faith without works is dead, and most of these kids are dead. They have been brainwashed to think they are radical because they purchase 'alternative' brands, eat 'progressive' foods, wear 'edgy' clothing (often displaying provocative slogans), watch 'radical' TV shows or listen to 'radical' music, and in particular, think certain wayward thoughts. Since they believe they are radical by fiat (or something), they don't actually have to do anything, like vote. (And some even authoritatively counsel the other kids not to vote too!)

They have not even met each other; they don't even know the actual activists in their own communities.

Their radicalism is a role-playing game. That's all.

The simple curiosity that used to rate rolled eyes and whispers in a high school classroom, now warrants hundreds of young women calling me nasty names and instructing me to go away: old people "don't belong" on tumblr. The idea that the internet "belongs" to everybody is also a thing of the past. Now, "everybody" is supposed to go their own corners. The quaint 90s idea that the net would break down barriers and allow us all to talk to each other, regardless of differences? So dated, so 90s. One tumblrite snidely asked me, did I really believe that shit? I answered, not only did I believe it, I briefly experienced it... and if she had too, she might be bored and disappointed with the internet discourse she is currently stuck with, wherein everyone she talks to appears to be of her same suburban economic class (they don't dare even venture into the cities!) and obediently repeats the same dogma. Its like walking into a middle-school classroom, but: the kids are geniuses, the vocabularies are astounding, the knowledge is amazing. Imagine how effective they might be if they organized others, if they left their suburban basements and the echo chambers they now inhabit. Think of how smart they could be! Think of the progress we might make!

[Amusing aside: Interestingly, they often tell me to go away in the same post in which they proudly extol diversity and difference. Not kidding you one bit. The irony escapes them totally.]

~*~

OH COME ON Daisy! Somebody is yelling at me: what about the Bernie Bros? What about the Sanders campaign, Ferguson demonstrations, Black Lives Matter? There are lots of young people in all of these movements.

Yes... well, those are interesting, and I have decided, after much close analysis, they are not the same people.

The tumblr kids and the the Reddit kids are not the Ferguson kids and the Bernie Bros, although they echo the rhetoric (dogma). The kids out doing real activism are using Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and get reblogged/linked on the other platforms like Tumblr, Reddit, Google Plus. Actual activists simply don't have time for all the theoretical, nitpicky back-and-forth that the tumblrites specialize in.

Which brings me to the next problem.

The fakes.

The early internet, like now, was full of fakes, but the difference was that it was a basic one-line fake vs a full-grown, fully-imagined fake. Somebody might say they were married, then later completely forget who they had claimed to be and say they were dating some new person. Or somebody would claim to be male or female, and later mess up and complain about their period, their pregnancy, their old football injury or their prostate test. Busted.

Pretty simple though. People rarely shared their geographic location, and many refused to say what race they were. (If you guessed they were white, they might ask why you came to that conclusion, when they had never said what race they were. That was actually fairly common.) Asking too many questions about identity could get you banned on bulletin boards; it was considered rude and intrusive. ANSWER THE ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS, moderators would instruct us repeatedly, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW *identity* TO MAKE THE ARGUMENTS. And I discovered that no, you don't. We started to think: Maybe it's better to get appeals to IDENTITY out of they way and get to the heart of the matter: civil rights for all people, fairness and justice for all people.

But... but... here's the thing: identity politics (what Will Shetterly has correctly and incisively named Identitarianism) tells us exactly the opposite.

In fact, identity politics is the flip side of the elitism it was born to counter: identity politics posits that some identities are sacrosanct. In short, some identities are simply "better" than others. It is basically the same as saying: if you went to THIS school or THAT school, you are smarter than regular people; if you are rich and well-traveled, you are a better class of person and more worthy of being taken seriously and listened to. ("when you're rich, they think you really know!") A staggeringly-rich idiot who has never held political office might well be our next president, while a poor idiot would be laughed at... in fact, a poor idiot would have more humility and never even attempt such a thing.

The online youth culture tells us that identity is the thing, they demand IDENTITY lists before they will interact with each other, or with you. They list their identity markers the way girls used to proudly point to their charm bracelets and tell us what all the charms meant.

I chart the beginning of the deification of identity politics as coinciding with the Advent of our first Identity Politics president, the one who duly mentioned the laundry list of identities in his presidential acceptance speech. This is the New Order, people, are you listening? I thought it was cool at the time, but that was before I realized identity would (once again) be used to shame people, only a different group this time; in fact, like shape-shifting, the shamed-group constantly changes.

And what has happened, in this toxic atmosphere that worships "identity"?

Well, what happens when one identity is considered superior?

I refer you to SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY and similar stories. Ambitious poor folks have often claimed to be independently-rich white people, well traveled, good schools, all the stuff I just mentioned. Why? To be well-regarded, to have status and to be taken seriously. Your words take on GRAVITAS when your impressive identity backs your shit up. And when it doesn't, you might be told that everybody has opinions (just like assholes) and yours don't matter. But just re-invent yourself tomorrow as **worshiped IDENTITY** and write the same opinion, then watch everyone tell you how great and important it is.

This whole phenomenon used to make me mad. Then it made me laugh. Then it made me tired, weary. And finally: embarrassed. I am wholly embarrassed and disgusted with the Left. As I said once before (and I was right, so pay attention): if we can't change this sorry-assed state of affairs, we will LOSE, and LOSE BIG... and furthermore, if we are this catastrophically clumsy and pedestrian in our analysis: we DESERVE TO LOSE.

So, get ready for President Trump or REPENT KIDDIES. REPENT NOW or get used to it being far far far worse than you ever remember in your lifetime. The American Raj is over, but Trump is preparing us for the Last Gasp of the American Century. (As for me, all I have been able to think of, over and over, is the end of WHEN THE MUSIC'S OVER by the Doors, when Morrison screams JESUS SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Yes, please save us.

~*~

My advice, which may well be too little, too late... a day late and a dollar short:

Leave the basement and get out there with the Black Lives Matter people. Stop nitpicking with people on your same ideological side, and start fighting with the REAL ENEMY. How about you bring self-doubt, tears and weakness to the OPPOSITION rather than your own comrades?

And if you don't want to do this, as I asked once before, who are you really working for?

Tumblrites: for every argumentative post with someone on your own side, do one angry post addressed to the opposition. HOW?--they ask (they have never MET the opposition)... well, take a hashtag like MRA or BLACK LIVES MATTER or TRUMP and go find them. Then, pick a fight (i.e. criticize their posts, stay focused, no cussing) and preoccupy them for long periods and drain their energy. (Since that is exactly what they do to you, and you don't seem to realize it.) For every nasty insult you level at a fellow Leftist or sister feminist, make sure you deliver twice, three times that to the enemy, the Right wing. If you cannot argue with the Right wing, you are not a Leftist, you are engaging in Role-playing games and FASHION (identity politics) only.

[Amusing aside: A favorite reply when I argue with the identitarians is "I CAN'T EVEN" ... which obviously means that despite the fancy-ass schools they constantly brag about, they are too stupid to complete their own sentences. What is I CAN'T EVEN.... you can't even WHAT??? GO AWAY then and leave politics to the grown-ups who CAN EVEN.]

~*~

I recently ran somebody off tumblr when I found evidence of her fakery. I promised to print her name and elite college employer (hint: most elite college in the country and how did I instinctively KNOW that?) if she continued the lying bullshit about how oppressed and radical, etc, she is. I didn't hesitate for a second.

Later, I felt guilty, but then I realized that of course she will be back in still another (oppressed, ultra-PC) incarnation, and I probably won't even recognize her. Granted, she won't have the thousands of adoring-groupie followers that she once had; that will undoubtedly take some time to accumulate again, but I have no doubt she can do this. They loooove her. They dedicated posts to her and lovingly called her their "blog crush".

They love a fake.

Repeat: they love a fake.

And I would jeer if it not already happened to me too. Lisaquestions/Lisa Harney (one of the people who ran me off one of the aforementioned email lists) has also turned out to be a fake. They appear to be a tag-teaming, white, highly-educated hetero cis couple living in an amazing Seattle-area house priced at over a half-million... not the poor wittle disabled trans woman on a fixed income that they have always claimed to be. (And this is why nobody has ever met them in person!) In fact, this busybody couple proudly lists their brag-worthy running times on Facebook, so apparently, disability is another PC identity in lefty circles, even as real-life disabled people are systematically excluded and shit on. Adding descriptors such as "genderqueer" (nobody can agree what that means, but it means you are oppressed) and "disabled" (means you are on anti-depressants, good thing nobody can tell by looking!) to an already-privileged suburban background, guarantees that you will not be attacked as harshly.

[Amusing aside: Many of these same fake-disabled identitarians also refused to vote for politicians who accepted the Medicaid expansion in their states, thus guaranteeing that many disabled people will die, of course. In my local political work, I learned that people with actual disabilities, activists or not, were acutely aware of this issue and how it impacted them; South Carolina pointedly did NOT take the Medicaid expansion. Therefore, this issue and the discussion around it became one foolproof way I ferreted out the disability-fakes.]

~*~

What does it mean, that fakes are all over the discourse? How do they impact it?

What is their agenda? To look good to others, to feed their ego, or ... do they actually intend to engineer leftist concepts/theories in ways that will benefit them? How would they do this and how WOULD it benefit them?

It has been pointed out to me by interested parties (meaning: I didn't figure it out all by myself) that some of the most contentious crap on tumblr and Reddit, the source of so much ideological in-fighting, has started with the fakes. (This takes me back to my earlier proposition that provocateurs are the problem, or at least that they are successful in "pointing" the arguments in certain directions.) One activist pointed out to me that Lisaquestions' first (and very influential) blog, Questioning Transphobia, was the first place the "my penis is a woman's penis" argument was made. Before Lisa's QT dogma was formulated, trans women did not usually discuss their penises. After Lisa's proclamations, their penises seemed to be a major subject with them, just like when your obnoxious little brother discovered his and couldn't stop waving it around. Bloggers like Toni Dorsay took up the banner, decreeing that anyone who says trans women were socialized as male is a transphobe, anyone who says a trans woman has a male organ is a transphobe, any lesbian who won't sleep with trans women due to a dislike of (or no discernible reaction to) penises, was a transphobe. In fact, everyone is a transphobe; even trans people like my real-life friend SCBoy are screamed at for not getting with the dogma.

And now real life and the internet meet in strange ways. SC state senator Lee Bright, dangerous right-wing creationist crackpot and official Tea Party looney tune, has proposed a transgender bathroom bill here in SC, just like the one in NC. This has brought about the witty hashtag #peewithLee.

I do not want to pee with Lee, and in fact, I want nothing to do with Lee. Lee needs to disappear. (note: he once had libertarian tendencies and supported Ron Paul, but that didn't get him enough votes and he is now on the BIG GOVERNMENT, MORE LAWS AND MORE WAR side of the fence, with Ted Cruz and the whole Hee Haw gang.) Although I dislike the online trans discourse (much of which I believe is dominated by fakes--being a supposedly 'stealth trans person' is a perfect, airtight excuse to avoid meeting people in real life, isn't it?) -- I will NOT be agreeing with Lee Bright about shit. I once agreed with him about war and weed and Ron Paul, but this was way back in that exciting, hothouse year of Occupy, when anything seemed possible. We have gone our separate ways. Lee Bright sees trans people as an easy way to get votes in hyper-conservative South Carolina. The online-fakes see trans people as a way to needle feminists and leftists and handily bring us down.

Very similar isn't it? Using groups of unpopular people for political gain is the way Southern politics has always been played, but I never thought it would CATCH ON everywhere else.

Then again, I am reminded that this is how that famous German Chancellor was elected ... and don't ever forget that, yall. ELECTED. He was ELECTED.

I know, I have just ruined my endless tl;dr post with the Godwin rule, but sometimes, you just have to.

~*~

And what does all of this mean for me, my blog, my politics, yada yada?

It means I do not blog the way I once did.

It means I now keep my private life very private, when I used to broadcast my business all over creation.

It means I am suspicious of everyone online (including even Facebook friends), that I have not personally verified.

It means when I change my mind about something, I will often not be sharing that here.

I am hoping to get this blog started up again as an outlet for reviews, links, local news, etc... but I always wrote in a very personal, chatty, Good Housekeeping/hey-yall style, as if we were all just girls trying to get by. I honestly don't know if I can pull that off anymore; I am no longer sure that is who we are at all.

At least, I no longer am.

~*~

After 4 years of doing the radio show, I changed. My methods, my outlook, changed dramatically. For instance, I learned firsthand that there are rabble-rousers and other loud types who will categorically refuse to go on the air, refuse to publicly give their point of view, and even refuse to provide me with someone who CAN. And I would think, annoyed, WHAT THE HELL GOOD ARE YOU THEN? I became angry at inaction, angrier than I ever was before. I constantly heard complaining and pleas for help, and then... observed the learned helplessness as that individual would refuse any help I offered, such as... GO ON THE RADIO AND TELL US ABOUT IT, GODDAMMIT. This is what you do: tell the world. And you start with us.

Some would. Many did. Others? Ha.

And what was the difference between the people who would and the people who would not?

I finally figured it out: they did not take themselves seriously! And they seemed surprised when anyone else did.

Is this why we have the fakes? Because they feel like they can only take themselves seriously when they are someone else?

If only identitarians are sacrosanct, important, worthy of being taken seriously... it stands to reason that those who want to be taken seriously will invent identities for themselves, to join this rarefied, special club. Just like the talented Mr Ripley. They may even believe these fake identities are real, like the kids on anti-depressants who claim to be disabled, although no one IRL has any clue they are on anti-depressants.

Or they may just make up these identities wholesale, and pretend to be someone else entirely.

In any event, the internet and the political discourse have been irreparably damaged. I am looking forward to the day when we can track them all down, every single one, not just the ones who get sloppy and/or simply can't hide which elite college they work for.

I used to be afraid of that, but no more. As some famous, miracle-producing rabbi once said, the truth shall set you free.

Back in the day, at the Christopher Street Gay Pride March in NYC, we chanted, OUT OF THE CLOSETS AND INTO THE STREETS!

How about now?: OUT OF THE BASEMENTS AND INTO THE STREETS! OFF THE FUCKING INTERNET AND INTO THE STREETS!

Time to update the slogan, add your own, play along at home.

~*~

In the meantime, what will happen to us? Can we turn this around? Is Citizen Kane going to be president?

When the music's over, turn out the lights.

Online provocateurs are the real thing

When I read Glenn Greenwald's latest leak of the Snowden files, titled How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations--I found it some pretty sobering stuff. (all graphics here are from the article; you can click to enlarge.) Greenwald wrote:

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the [NSA whistleblower Edward] Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

And now it's time to tell another chunk of the story, focusing on my little corner of the net.

On the radio, I had been talking about online-provocateurs (and their carefully-targeted disruptions) only a few days prior to reading the Greenwald piece. I suddenly knew I had to write this. Typically, very few over on Tumblr seem to have read the leaked documents. On Social-Justice Tumblr, despite the okey-doke posturing, politics is basically secondary to self, self, self and the self's many facets of wonderfulness. (sigh)

I knew I might have to name names. And naming names has a tiresome and predictable outcome: The named-persons' friends stream forth to defend them and call me evil names. In this case, the provocateur is a successful and much-enjoyed troll, with literally thousands of followers. In December, after this individual "gave the order"--I was basically Tumblr-blacklisted ... which means it is highly unlikely that this person and their legions of fans will ever read this. Thus, I feel a certain freedom in that I don't have to please anyone and I have already been labeled an enemy (although I am not sure why--it was never fully explained to me). I might as well go ahead and speak my mind.

I am talking about THIS AWFUL PERSON (quoted therein), who shall henceforth be known as TAP for short. She is probably the most well-known leader of the trans women faction at Tumblr. In many ways, she directs the posse and calls the shots; if she was not in a leadership-position, I wouldn't take note of her zealousness in destroying others, she'd be just another meanie. But as a leader who draws a lot of attention, it is pertinent than she is divisive and gives advice to others, that they should be as divisive as she is. TAP is an entertaining writer, fairly outrageous and very good at reducing her detractors to tears; she excels at the personal insult, the creative cussing and take-downs. It is useless to attempt to argue "facts" with her. I know this, because she told me.

In the above link, TAP pointedly called herself an ex-troll, and yet, she is obviously trolling more than ever before. I wrote that piece in 2009, and it was only last year that I learned she was considered the biggest, nastiest and most vicious hell-raiser on Tumblr.

So what happened?

Check out the list of stuff I quoted from TAP in the link, the different types and techniques of trolls... and then check out THIS list:



It's the same, only not as colorful. Same. In fact, I am wondering if TAP is the one who wrote it. (Or maybe she just excelled at the correspondence course?) "Divorce behavior from outcome" = pretty much defines emotionally-manipulative trolling.

And here is where we cut to the chase:

We are not talking about a simple troll, folks. We are talking about someone who is masterful at driving people away from social justice movements; someone tremendously skilled in purposely painting social justice activists in the worst possible light. TAP is excellent in creating and exaggerating discord between two or more factions (as G Gordon Liddy said was necessary for the destabilization of a popular movement). In short, TAP may be a paid provocateur or federal agent. She might be working for the government, the NSA, The Dept of Homeland Security (etc etc) or she might be working for right-wing operations like Americans For Prosperity. She may be part of a "dirty tricks campaign" run by a particular sectarian group or politician. She may be getting nickel-and-dimed; regularly slipped some PayPal contributions in exchange for picking a fight with first this activist, then that one... and she may not know WHO she is actually working for.

Since TAP endlessly talks about being mentally ill and having been manipulated by opportunistic people in the past, it is also reasonable to assume this could still be happening. Certainly, she is far worse than she was in 2009, when I wrote that post.

Who is making her so much worse, and who benefits?



Ask yourself: who benefits?

We see that TAP's last attack was on Ellen Page, a likable and popular young actress who just came out as gay. TAP attacked her, claiming that she was transphobic (since all cis lesbians are transphobic). However, in her coming-out speech, Page pointedly mentioned trans actress Laverne Cox as an inspiration, so TAP's statement instantly blew up into a feud within the LGBT community on Tumblr, not surprisingly. TRANSLATION: A great public-relations moment for the movement, gets the immediate take-down from TAP.

This is a seasoned provocateur-move, and this is what made my antenna go up: Take the last morale-building WIN from a movement, and turn it into a morale-killing LOSS. TAP did this admirably. Although I do find it odd she is changing her name so many times; like a half-dozen times in the last few months. She changed her name again, right before this attack on Page.

And now, since the Greenwald leak, I have suddenly become aware of TAP's habits. Mostly, she tears feminists apart. She is devoted to keeping trans and cis women divided and spends hours and hours online exacerbating the divisions, keeping everybody angry and stirred-up. When things start to die down, she gets them stirred up again in short order, by making pronouncements like the one about Ellen Page. For instance, she tells all cis women that we are ugly, stupid and totally inferior to trans women. (She emphatically says "Ewwww!" about the bodies of cis women.) This kind of thing is calculated to get a response. And although she claims she has a job, she appears to spend ALL of her time insulting people on Tumblr. She deliberately tries to upset and hurt people and proudly succeeds. Usually, after one of her bloody verbal attacks, she invariably tries to milk pity, and suddenly reminds her readers that she is suicidal, mentally ill and popping pills. (Apparently, she doesn't realize that being a constantly-vicious, cruel person makes you feel bad about yourself. As you should, of course.) She then throws in some politically-correct stories, reblogs some crowd-pleasers. Next day, she is right back at it without missing a beat. Dedicated and determined. She is single-minded and relentless.

After all, she has a job to do.

~*~

To those of you who follow this person, stop. You are being used and exploited. She is spreading her poisonous hate to you, and you ingest it willingly.

But even more than garden-variety hate: you are being manipulated. It is doubtful she believes most of what she says. SHE IS TROLLING AS A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY, deliberately trying to bust up several movements at once. And she does it demolition style: accuse cis feminists of raping thousands of trans women (she has actually claimed that, for example) and then scream like a maniac when anyone asks for evidence of such a thing. There is no "evidence" that will satisfy a provocateur, there is only emotional manipulation and extremism. These are their DESIRED GOALS: to make you mistrust feminists and trans women, to make people more likely to avoid face-to-face collectives and/or group-activism, and in fact, likely to drive you away from all political involvement.

Or maybe more likely to come to the conclusion of the right wing: THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL CRAZY.

That is the real goal, since there is no olive branch offered, no dialogue, no efforts to come together or to understand each other. After all, that would STRENGTHEN our movements, not weaken them.

And that is not what she is being paid for.



When she stops this behavior, I will change my mind. Not before. Until she stops, she is dangerous. She is working for reactionaries and effectively doing the work of the right wing. I regard her as the online equivalent of a grenade.

And so should you.

I'm not gonna let it bother me tonight

Atlanta Rhythm Section - I'm not gonna let it bother me tonight



Congratulate me on not letting myself get all stirred up by online insanity (and getting called the b-word). Getting a jump on my New Year's resolution, which is not to let anger control me or rule me, as it has in the past. NO MORE. I won the first round and I am proud of myself.

As the 12 steps counsel us: One day at a time. I can refrain from anger for one night, can't I?

I'm not gonna let it bother me tonight. :)

Military Fakes don't help Veterans

At left: My father, who was not a fake veteran.







I first started reading blogs in 1998, when the USA was still at relative 'peace'--in terms of war and military interventions. In the past decade, I have witnessed the increase and escalation of military activity in several countries... and with this escalation, an astronomical increase in online trolls and fakes, claiming all sorts of bogus military experience.

Yes, you read that right. Fakes.

On this Veterans Day, I am hereby calling out the fakes.

A real military veteran is usually not afraid to name themselves, or at the very least, share a significant part of themselves online: their photograph, their blog, their location, their Twitter or Facebook profile. Like all real people, pseudonymous or not, their experience rings true, because it comes from the heart. They don't always make themselves look good, or certain, or without ambivalence. Like the rest of us, pseudonymous or not, real veterans have a social-media presence that is believable and consistent. People know them, and there is genuine proof of their ongoing interaction in the world, including their military service.

By contrast, the fakes are anonymous troublemakers and the tellers of tall tales. They often claim to be signature bad-asses, such as Marines or Navy Seals (as the Vietnam Era fakes could not refrain from claiming to be Airborne Rangers or Green Berets). They always claim the violent, romanticized, movie-magic aspect of war; the fakes never claim kitchen duty or the boring grunt work of checking in thousands of uniforms. They claim to have seen lots and lots of carnage. They tell stories of car-bombs and how they breezed through such events, unblinking. They brag about drinking coffee next to piles of corpses, unfazed.

And this is how we know they are fakes. Nobody drinks coffee next to piles of corpses, unfazed, unless they are monsters. I simply refuse to believe our veterans are monsters.

For this reason, the fakes are a blight.

The posturing phonies who brag about their fictional service are doing actual harm to genuine veterans, making up bullshit-bad-ass stories, thereby claiming sympathy, expertise and respect that simply does not belong to them. The arrogance and superiority that is frequently obvious in their online personas (undoubtedly reflecting feelings of inferiority and unimportance in real life) creates antipathy in people who would otherwise feel great empathy for veterans. The fictional crap they constantly spew forth (and I have caught them in countless contradictions and lies) aggravates existing negative feelings that many of us have about war; it doesn't do the military any favors.

The stories of well-known Vietnam-era fakes (or 'partial fakes'--such as historian Joseph Ellis and recent congressional candidate Kenneth Aden) have been part of our culture for a very long time... and due to the endless war of the past decade, we can now expect to see a whole new crop of them. The problems with these fakes will be never-ending. There is already enough trouble tracking down the frauds who dare to name themselves and claim jobs they do not deserve.

The online versions are fast-becoming the same sort of plague--and there seems to be little we can do to expose them.

My advice to one and all, is, do not readily assume someone (especially an anonymous online person repeatedly blowing his/her own horn) is automatically telling the truth about military service. The internet has made it exponentially easier to research the specificities of war, as well as the in-depth details of various actions and incursions (and their casualties). There are more photos, facts and figures online than ever before in history. Any of us, gifted enough in story-telling and accompanying ego-driven motives, could likely pull this off with enough effort. Americans typically want to honor and believe the best of veterans, and are unlikely to call someone a fake, unless that evidence is literally staring them in the face.

But in the case of anonymous commenters and people hanging out on blogs, be skeptical. Just as anyone can claim to be a model or cheerleader or actor or math-genius, anyone can claim to be a veteran. When that person decides to show their ass or treat people in a deliberately unkind, nasty fashion, they tarnish the reputation of ALL veterans, while using their supposed (nonexistent) military service as an excuse to be a first-class asshole.

They don't deserve your indulgence, they deserve to be exposed.

Or at least ignored.

Happy Veterans Day.

Cinco de Mayo!

It's been a tough week for blogging. But at least I saw another antique Chevy when I went out to grab a bite earlier in the week!




I am grateful I woke up this morning without any notifications of direct threats, as I did last Saturday. It is not a day I am likely to forget. Five people sent me messages as soon as I signed on, several making sure I TOOK THE SCREEN SHOTS. I obediently did as they told me to do, but I did not visit the hate-page after I initially took the shot, because I found it too unnerving.

I have spent the last week decompressing from disaster, even though I gained a parcel of new Facebook friends and radio-show listeners. At the same time, I have been extremely careful, looking over my shoulder. Is this what it's like to be well-known and controversial? Apparently so. I have been wondering if I am up for this.

I was blocked from Facebook for about 24 hrs. I am not sure of the specific reason, since all my requests for clarification were totally ignored. One of my comments was deemed "threatening"--which is pretty ironic under the circumstances (as stated above, there was a whole Facebook page threatening me physically), and my questions ("Why or how is this a threatening statement?") sent to the proverbial round-file. I have since learned that if your comments are deliberately targeted (as mine have been) and reported X number of times, THAT is what deems it offensive, not the actual content of the comment(s) in question. It's all about the clicks. The warnings and blockages are executed by Facebook-bots, not by actual people. This explains the wildly-varying standards: on one Facebook page, you can talk filth and nobody cares, but on another, a simple factual statement such as (for instance) Bob Jones University-affiliates are covering up for rape-apologists is considered "offensive."

The truth is now subject to censorship for being "too offensive" for certain overprotected, neurasthenic people to be able to tolerate. And their intolerance is what makes it "offensive."

I am suddenly reminded of a bone-chilling line in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by the legendary Philip K Dick, a line that (tellingly) did not make it into the screenplay of the film, which became Blade Runner. Paraphrasing: What proof do we have that empathy exists, asks the android, except the humans' word for it? Isn't it something they just made up to prove they have this special thing?

And the Bob Jones University-apologists similarly ask: What proof do we have that your truth exists, except your word for it? Isn't it something you just made up, to say something bad about us?

It's scary, isn't it? After all, they already say this about science and evolution, global-warming and gay people.

I've long been claiming there is no such thing as objectivity, and I think this whole debacle is proof of that. The word "offensive" is no longer about unacceptable cuss words and sexual terms; the word is now assigned to any statement that bothers you, for any reason. Whether the statement is "objectively true" is of no importance in this determination.

Empathy is next. What proof do we have that it exists? OOOPS, is that an offensive statement? BOOM, down the memory hole.

You should NOT have to read such disconcerting, disorienting notions.

~*~

I attempted a joke on my show this morning, off the cuff, and it bombed. Nobody's perfect. Better luck next time and thank you for playing!

Podcast of bad joke and other topics, is up.

And last night, saw another cool car and took another picture. My favorite color! I am not sure of the make/year of this very lovely, cherry-red beauty, but if you know, speak up.

Biographical aside: I used to work in the purty pink building, which is at the corner of Main and East North Streets in Greenville. It is now a clothing store, but was a GNC when I worked there.

~*~

Lots of interpersonal ups and downs in local Occupy groups, including mine, as well as groups in Spartanburg and Columbia. (I haven't yet checked the astrological charts, but I am sure something must be going on.) I shall refrain from bad-mouthing liberals and their inability to SUBMIT TO COLLECTIVE DISCIPLINE (Yes, Barack, I am lookin at you too) but.... well, they DO have a problem submitting to collective discipline.

Simply put, if a whole group votes that you are disruptive, stay your ass away. Is that too difficult to understand? People seem to get this concept in ANY endeavor but politics. It appears that some folks think they are just so wonderful that they deserve to be heard and listened to (including their sorry excuses) more than other people, certainly more than they have ever listened to anyone else. How does that work exactly?

In any event, I am once again reminded of my mentor, Steve Conliff, and his rule of thumb for the Yippies, that I know I have quoted numerous times previously, in this space: If you let anybody in, anybody WILL come in.

And yes, they do. The confused, the argumentative, the power-tripping, the lecherous, the whole Hee Haw gang is present and accounted for. I always take their presence as a given. I can easily accept these people, if they are aware of their personality-issues, as I am (mostly) aware of mine. I want people to cut me slack, so I cut others slack, too. But I notice many of these people do not think they have any personality-issues, in fact, they think they are just peachy-keen and wonderful. Unfortunately, that is often where the liberalism comes in: they have been believing their own press. They believe they are compassionate, aware and kind, just because liberals are said to be compassionate, aware and kind. (By contrast, radicals never get this kind of good press; radicals are dangerous, crazy, insane, outside agitators, etc.) Thus, when these folks go off the rails, you also have the attendant spectacle of other liberals going into catatonia: But I thought he was... NICE!

And there is often no evidence that this person was EVER "nice"--except that they agreed with us. We tend to assume a lot about the people who agree with us: they MUST be good, since (it goes without saying!) WE are GOOD!

Maybe the operative difference is, I don't think I am particularly good. I try, but I fail repeatedly. Thus, I assume others are trying and failing, repeatedly, all the time. And as we know, passing the kid who has consistently failed is ultimately a mean thing to do and sets them up for more failure. So it is with people who repeatedly fail us.

At some unavoidable juncture, it is time to send them back to Decency 101, that class they obviously missed. We tolerate their continued failures at our peril.

~*~

Greenville Occupiers, bringing the radicalism! Yeah!







There will be an Occupy Picnic in McPherson Park this afternoon, 3:30pm, be there or be square. General Assembly is tomorrow at 2pm in Bergamo Square; Main and Coffee Streets, across from Coffee Underground... which is especially handy for quick coffee-junkie fixes, also a very good refuge for bad weather, which has only happened a couple of times.

Bergamo Square is currently under construction; it will soon be the home of some monstrous new building, currently given the ominous title of PROJECT ONE. (Wasn't Kampuchea named that by Pol Pot?*) It is growing fairly enormous by the day, and we usually picket right in front of it.

The Greenville Antiwar Society used to have our yearly candlelight vigil exactly where the construction is now, but the small building with two giant flights of steps (where I took this photo from) is now gone.

Since we are standing there with signs, several people have asked us if we are protesting the construction.

They seem disappointed when we say no.


*Correction, that was THE YEAR ONE. I always get capitalism and communism mixed up, sorry about that. ;)

Dirt

Some angry local "Democrat" wrote a nasty, 1445-word (!) hit-piece on me, and has now even outed me with my legal name.

Otherwise, I would link it here and we could brawl further.

But using my name is an unbridled personal attack and here in upstate South Carolina, could even expose me to actual physical danger. I use a pseudonym here and on the air, for good reasons.

About this sordid affair, I will say no more (((sigh))), but its been going on for days now. (This guy obviously has the serious hots for Ann Romney! My radio-show comments about her have made him bloody frantic.) Also, this is my golden opportunity to link the blog Genderratic, where Gingko often discusses the phenomena he calls "damseling"--when men come to women's rescue for ostensibly pseudofeminist reasons; you know, like this "Democrat" defending poor, beleaguered Ann Romney, who needs serious protection from little nobodies like your humble narrator. (Or something like that.)

And it made me think of this song. It just POPPED into my head. :)

I am pretty sure Lou wrote it about Iggy Pop, since Iggy also wrote a song by the same name.

I guess they weren't getting along so well, at that point.

Dirt - Lou Reed



This is my last word on this subject, since I am now banned from this guy's blog (so people can go on to discuss me without me interfering or correcting the copious inaccuracies). Considering what happened to left wing radio host Alan Berg, I am thinking I need to start carrying a weapon myself. After all, South Carolina has lots more white supremacists than Colorado ever did. And this man has deliberately turned me into a target by naming me.

What kind of gun? I'd prefer an M-16, but I don't think it will fit into my purse.

Tuesday Tunes: The Problem is You

The static hurts my ears

As stated in previous comments, I don't know from tumblr, despite various net-savvy people attempting to explain it's sacred mysteries to me. Therefore, I couldn't respond to the latest charges being lodged. So, I will have to do it here.

For the record, I'd really rather not, but it does appear necessary, at this point. (sigh)

This is from the tumblr blog The View From My Brain:

I didn’t read the post when you linked it before, so I didn’t realise who it was. Daisy Deadhead of Daisy’s Dead Air is a hateful bigoted and privileged asshat.

She is the feminist who literally told me to go die, because my coping methods for my autism issues were not approved by her holy vegan standards. And she did this in a discussion about something completely irrelevant, rather than on the post where my coping method was actually mentioned.

Good God, yall.

I have no idea at all what this refers to. I do not know Jemima Aslana, although I have seen her name before. I have never interacted with her, although I think she may have commented here once or twice. I have commented (in the past) on lots of blogs, but as stated above, have not figured out how to "do" tumblr and Aslana's blog is a tumblr blog. So the comments she refers to could not have been made on her blog. I'd like to know where this (mythical) exchange took place?

As regular readers know, I am not vegan and could not live more than 72 hrs (at most) without cheese--preferably smoked gouda or Tillamook aged cheddar. I think she has me confused with someone else.

Further, "literally" telling people to "go die"--that just isn't me. That is somewhat ungrammatical and unpoetic; I am more likely to quote Lou Reed, "I'm just waiting for [them/you] to hurry up and die," which I've been saying since the release of Sally Can't Dance. Old habits die hard. (I have never quite broken the habit of saying "far out" in, well, far out circumstances.) Simply put, I am not a person who tells people to go die, all while upholding holy vegan standards I don't have.

Of course, Jemima Aslana didn't bother to link to this very incendiary accusation. She was so eager to join the junior-high-school pile-on, she couldn't be bothered to check the facts. And said pile-on does get ugly, as I am enthusiastically called a "total shithead" and suchlike, by people who have never met me... including an individual I once foolishly complimented for their writing. (For some reason, I especially feel like the archetypal dumb hillbilly when someone I have lavishly complimented turns on me.)

As for the other spin-offs from spin-offs from Tweets and Twats and alllll the rest? I can't keep up. It all started here, but I am now getting links from strange corners of tumblrville and beyond. It's like that child's game "Telephone"--now they are writing about the writing about the writing about me, not writing about what I exactly wrote. If that makes sense. This is why I decided to address Jemima's accusation, since it seems to have taken on a life of its own and is getting repeated even more than anything I wrote on Renee's blog [Womanist Musings].

And it simply isn't true.

But I saved the best for last! Jemima's last paragraph:

Believe me, sweetheart, you aren’t getting anywhere with Daisy. She will first derail and if that doesn’t work for then she will assault your mental health until you become suicidal. I advise you to pull out now, because it can never end well with her. Never.

Jemima darlin, I have to say, that paragraph is one of the most bad-ass things ever written about me, and I love it! Thank you!!!

Am I a bad bitch or what?! ((((preens))))

My mother (who would have happily slit all their tires by now) would be so proud of me. Seriously, I wish she had lived long enough for me to read that paragraph to her, since she often considered me a silly, bubbleheaded peacenik and believed I let people walk all over me. Wouldn't she be thrilled to learn that the apple didn't fall far from the tree?

I must end here, on a decidedly positive note. :)

~*~

When the world is running down - The Police



turn on the radio
the static hurts my ears
tell me where would I go?
I ain't been out in years
turn on the stereo
it's played for years and years
an Otis Redding song
it's all I own

when the world is running down
you make the best of what's still around

Monday Music: Letter never sent

Letter never sent - R.E.M.

Your Friday Blogdonia Soap Opera

You know you've needed one.

I really, really, did not want to address this nonsense here. Really. But when people write entire posts about me, calling me out for my transgressions, well, whatcha gonna do.

What is really funny is that I responded. Like, 12 times, and I was moderated. And they keep asking questions. I answer...incredibly long-ass, intricate replies, and the answer is moderated.

No other choice, but to come here and settle it. (sigh) Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days in Feminist Blogdonia.

~*~

The brawl, we see, starts here and here. (Trigger warning, transphobia)

Background: The so-called radical feminist blog AROOO, aka "A Room of Our Own" (I say "so-called" because they always seemed rather ignorant of Second Wave feminist history, all while claiming it as their own), has a history of extremely nasty transphobia. I was banned from the blog after I objected to (trigger warning, viciousness and bullying) a post in which they (seriously) posted a photo of what they claimed was the genitalia (!) of a trans woman, and made fun of how weird it looks. To me, this was over the top, even more over the top than usual. As regular readers know, I react strongly to making fun of people's appearance, for whatever reason.

I also found it pornographic and deranged, but that's probably quibbling.

Margaret Jamison, the (apparently former) blogger in charge of AROOO, seemed to become more and more obsessed with trans women over time. There was less and less posting about feminism and racism (subjects she was keenly insightful about) and more and more hate speech directed at "tyrannies" (her word for "tranny") that she claimed sent her all manner of threats. This posting-genitalia nervous-breakdown was virtually inevitable. I had believed the general hate speech and turning trans women's attempted-replies into monkey-photos was bad enough, but the genitalia-photo, to me, was the real turning point. I objected, was banned in due course, and went away.

The End. (Or possibly one of those American International horror movies from the 60s: The End?)

Nah, you gotta be kiddin.

Joan Kelly, whom I love, recently met Margaret Jamison in the flesh and became unaccountably besotted with her wonderfulness. Perhaps Margaret is utterly fabulous in person, despite her increasing obsession with trans women, accompanying hate speech and photos of monkeys and genitals, I don't know. I suppose it's possible.

And rather suddenly, Joan has started running all kinds of anti-trans nastiness on her blog (see links above), when she did not used to hold this position. I assume it's to impress Margaret or in solidarity with Margaret, something like that. Unfortunately, these posts are becoming as embarrassingly obsessive and frequent as Margaret's posting at AROOO, which by the way, has ended. Now her co-blogger, Kitty Glendower, has taken over, posting about movies. (?) Huh? What the hell happened?

What happened is that some of Margaret's wack-ass transphobe "friends" (gotta watch those hater-friends, they tend not to be such stable personalities) turned against her (nah, say it isn't so) and posted her private business on the net. I haven't seen any of this private business, but I am assured it exists. (Paranoia will destroya) In fact, I have not seen much discussion AT ALL about Margaret, frankly, except for what I linked above by Suzan Cooke, which is from almost a YEAR AND A HALF AGO (and that tells you how long Margaret has been fulminating non-stop over the evilll trans people, Jesus H Christ).

In one of my offhand snipes in one of the many unpublished posts to the many rants Joan has published over the last few days (including threats to hunt down and shoot whoever outed her dear Margaret... I TOLD you it was bad, people), I mentioned something I've known about Margaret for a long time: the elite school she attended. As regular DEAD AIR readers know, I never forget stuff like that, and if you are going to get all self-righteous with me about 'oppression' -- you'd better not have a major privilege like that stashed away somewhere, or Daisy will drag it out of your privilege-closet and wave it right in your fucking face. Which I did.

And in so doing, I caused Joan and Margaret and the whole Hee Haw gang to have apoplexy. That is PRIVATE INFO!!!! WHO OUTED MARGIE AS A RICH KID!!!???!!! Heads will roll, baby.

Another blog informs me that this so-called "private" info was posted right on Margaret's Facebook page, so I think this is just another excuse to clutch one's pearls, squeal and holler, that the evilll trannies are at it again. I don't remember where I read it, but it didn't seem private... actually, I think Margaret was bragging about it herself when I first read it. (NOTE: people who went to rich, important schools can usually NEVER keep this to themselves for long.)

Anyway (cut to the chase; I am SO SORRY it takes awhile for soap-opera catch-up!), I stand accused of being a racist for comparing the use of the n-word to the use of anti-trans insults (see first link above). I was read the riot act, probably by someone who lives in an all-white neighborhood and never once helped beat up a klansman. Figures.

And I replied, for what, the 12th time? One part of my comment was allowed, the rest was edited. I told Joan, I would print it here if she censored me again. It is really unconscionable to call people out for racism and then not allow them to reply WITHOUT CENSORSHIP to your accusations. I am a lifelong activist who takes such accusations very seriously, not some dilettante who throws words and posts around recklessly. So, here is my complete, unedited reply, which Joan would not publish:



I should be very clear about one thing.

I do think racism and transphobia are analogous. You betcha. Amen. I believe is transphobia/racism are horrific, mindless, oppressive, repressive, evil hatreds of whole groups of people around the world, throughout history, that the haters have NOT EVEN MET. (That’s the part that I find so bizarre and even psychotic.) I grew up with this mindless, obsessive hatred of entire groups of people… and in my piece about my father, I made the analogy between racism and transphobia; I’ve done it before. This isn’t new.

http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2008/09/brute-heart-of-brute-like-you.html

My point was badly made, n-word and ‘transgendered males’–I should not have compared these words, but the hatred they represent. This is what I meant to say, which I only now realize. (my real excuse: exhaustion, lack of education, no time to read over what I type in a hurry, which is almost everything these days. As I have said over and over, I do not have internet access to blogs, email, etc at work.)

A crucial aspect of hating people you have never met, is letting them know, so they will stay away from you. Haters proudly announce hate, by using insulting terms that will hurt. Example: N-word, misgendering. I think the intent to insult is the same. The. Same. And of course, the overall hatred and obsession is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL in advanced cases like my father and Margie and m_Andrea. And that is what I meant to say, or should have said.

This is what I find analogous, the intent that would cause anyone to say these words after being nicely asked to stop. Words that have prefaced lynching, rape, murder, and thus, deliberately push buttons. NO, by God, you will not spare their feelings.

Neither would my dad, in fact, like Margie, it just made him worse.

Hate is hate and I will never countenance it. Sorry, Joan. But this is what you are trafficking in.

Now, if you cannot post this, as I suspect you can’t, please do your readers the courtesy of letting them know I have responded and delivered the sought-after mea-culpa.

I really hate the ‘putting words in my mouth’ and (I feel you have) incorrectly paraphrased me in this post and find it a hostile act. You can make this up to me by printing this comment. (I guess that will happen after the second Tuesday after the third Wednesday hell freezes over, yeah?)

But you asked, and you got.

~*~

Comments welcome, but rudeness and anti-trans bigotry will get the trap door, as well as a dose of redneck justice, which makes Margaret's [rich school] games, look like a tea party. Be advised, boyz and girlz.

Why the Right wing is winning, continued

...because the left no longer tolerates dissent.

I just realized I have been banned from a good half-dozen lefty-blogs in the past few weeks. And not a single right-wing blog has banned me.

I have been as much of a pest at the conservative right-wing blogs as I have been at the liberal-lefty-radical blogs; I have in fact been far more rude and nasty to the Tea Partiers. I have (more or less) minded my manners at all of the lefty blogs, but that hasn't helped me. After all, I AGREE in principle with the lefty bloggers.

All arguments at left-leaning blogs centered on various minor points of dogma, or about the fact of confrontation itself (something the right-wing welcomes and enjoys). The Left will have none of it. It seems the good people of the Left cannot even answer ME, one of their own. How on earth could the Left realistically respond to the Right? Looking at the liberal blogs in question, I see that no outright conservatives are allowed to participate. Looking at the conservative blogs, I see a willingness to take on the liberals, even a zeal to do so.

This is how we know they are on the ascent; they are unafraid.

Meanwhile, the Left cowers and censors some old hippie grandmother who already agrees with them.

Good lord, what's wrong with this picture.

~*~

Standing around in a cozy Christmas huddle with several female customers, chatting/worrying aloud about mercury content in fish, when one of them emphatically remarked: We need to be MAMA GRIZZLIES for the environment.

What?

Oh dear.

Does she know that Sarah Palin, Mama Grizzly of the Mama Grizzly movement, just shot a reindeer, which she will likely roast out on the snow-covered Alaskan tundra, and serve for Christmas dinner? I do not trust rich caribou-killing politicians/reality-TV whores to take care of the environment. I do trust Sarah Palin to be a bloodthirsty warmonger, mindless Republican talking-head and overall narcissistic swine.

Why, I wondered, do I come to such different conclusions than my customer... a very nice lady who speaks to me every day and cares about the poor fish filled with mercury? (She really does, too.)

Is it because of our different backgrounds that we have come to different conclusions? We don't seem that different to me.

That's the scary thing.

~*~

Another reason is that certain dark corners of the Left seem to have no sense of decency these days.

For example, Todd Pettigrew just wrote a spirited defense of incest on Macleans. Not just any incest (of course!) but the gold-standard of incest: father/daughter incest, the sexy kind that gets middle-aged guys excited. All those hot-young-daughter stories on BARELY LEGAL have finally made a cultural impact, and you can almost hear the drooling. These are porn-fantasies come to life, and various men on the left can barely restrain their enthusiasm. If I were Pettigrew's daughter and I lived in his house? I'd be making plans to move. Unless I was too young to move. And then I would have nothing to worry about, needless to say, since this is all about CONSENSUAL incest; this is a defense of incest only AT THE AGE OF CONSENT. Dad only makes the moves on his daughter the DAY SHE TURNS 18. Yes, we all know that's the way it usually happens, huh? It's all very RESPECTFUL and MINDFUL OF THE AUTONOMY OF WOMEN. Sure it is.

Feminists write epistles the length of the Summa Theologica about incest and how it is an abuse of familial and patriarchal power; how it amounts to men creating and brainwashing sexual beings for their own use, and it all comes to this? Some hotshot professor (David Epstein) is busted for "having an affair" with his 20-something daughter, and well... we obviously need to rethink things. I mean, this is a COLUMBIA PROFESSOR! It MUST be okay.

After eons of redneck jokes about southerners banging their sisters and their kids, the people on Central Park West DIDN'T REALIZE that important people of the upper classes want to bang their kids too! They have just received the memo, and they are on the case. We'll have your reputation restored in no time, professor Epstein!

They are now comparing incest to homosexuality, which incidentally, is an argument I first heard from William Donahue of the Catholic League: First they'll say homos are okay and next thing you know, they will be championing incest.

Oh, don't be ridiculous, we replied.

And now, the fashionable liberals are saying just that. They are comparing same-sex peers who have attractions to each other, to someone who RAISED A CHILD to be his sex partner.

Needless to say, this is all guys excusing/defending this behavior... and this is all about David Epstein and Woody Allen and other MEN. I don't see anybody advocating moms diddling their sons (of whatever age) which I think would TERRIFY these men in a way they could not even discuss rationally. All of the examples they offer are about MEN MEN MEN... and their daughters.

Jesus H, has the Left lost all sense of morality? We have 9.8% unemployment (not nearly as sexy a story) and lefty writers are wasting valuable political net-space defending a perverted professor who can't keep it zipped around his own kid.

I figure these sicko defenses of sicko Epstein brought at least another thousand people or so over to the Tea Party side.

General notice

In Feminist Blogdonia, the melodrama over Mary Daly's death has been fairly extreme.

Although many of the drama-majors have very good points, many have also been intentionally mean, vicious, childish, self-centered, solipsistic and politically backward. I'd link, but won't give them the satisfaction.

Suffice to say, I have done a huge reevaluation of my involvement on some of these blogs, and probably will not personally participate on these blogs in the future except to read and generally keep up.

There is no reason, I repeat, no reason to randomly attack people on blogs. If you were bullied as a kid or young person, that is still no excuse to act that same bullying and viciousness out on others. If you are a malcontent, I feel for you, but don't expect me to have respect for sheer emotion divorced from all true political action. Show me the creds. What have you done? If you can't point to something IN REAL LIFE that you have managed to do (the net is safe and anonymous, one reason why you feel free to behave like an asshole), yet you fulminate constantly about your supposed "oppression"* blah blah blah, I do not take you seriously as a political activist. I am laughing at you as a dilettante and fraud. Got it?

Yes, you know who you are.


~*~


*addressed to anyone not on Facebook, that I can't actually verify exists in real life in the form they present themselves on the net (proof that people IRL actually KNOW THEM). I am beginning to believe that several of these troublemakers are total made-up fakes, since there is no real-life record of their existence. If they bellyache that it's too daaaaaangerous for them, try a pseudonym, as many (including me) have done. I want proof you EXIST.

No proof, then as far as I am concerned, you don't.

Another First for Dead Air!

FWD/Forward (aka Feminists With Disabilities for a way Forward) just started publishing this month.

This is a great blog, but unfortunately, I am not allowed to post there. (SEE EDIT BELOW)

Yes! This is a MAJOR FIRST for Dead Air, wherein I link a blog that has already BANNED ME!

Unfortunately, I went and pissed them off already by daring to ask why no bloggers over 50 were contributing and no bloggers over 50 are linked. Two major problems, as far as I'm concerned. Then I was brazenly redneck enough to offer myself up for linkage. (OMG! I forgot how UPSET everyone gets when you do that!) I've really gotta learn to keep my mouth shut and just let people have their illusions about how FORWARD thinking they are. Then again, I'd never have started a blog at all if I'd done that... so you see how confusing it can be, deciding when to speak out and when to stay comfortably and safely silent.

Well, still no answer about why old women are being excluded. It seems to me, once you mention something like that, steps should be actively taken. Certainly, if I was informed there had been ANY demographic group excluded from MY blogroll, I would be correcting it FORTHWITH and IMMEDIATELY. But then, I don't believe in exclusion. Since I (gingerly) entered Blogdonia over two years ago, I have learned that some people like to talk a good game, but still prefer to be exclusive, cliquey and clubby in their actual associations.

And as usual, asking for a link consigns you to the depths of Dante's Ninth Circle of Hell... it is probably considered the RUDEST thing you can do in certain highly-educated, middle-class areas of Blogdonia, although I still don't understand why and no one will explain it to me. (I just reciprocally linked someone today, who asked me to, for instance.) People ask to be friended on Facebook, don't they? What is the difference, exactly?

I also assumed most people knew that age and disability are intricately linked (witness the popularity of the phrase "temporarily able-bodied"--reminding people that age will impact the body) but FWD apparently doesn't want to talk about this or be reminded of it. (Why have a disability blog, then?)

I think there is likely another reason I have been banned, that some of you know and/or might be able to guess. (My kind particularly not welcome.) I won't get into it here, since I should be used to it by now... but after all this time, I'm still never prepared when it happens.

I will say that I am as knowledgeable as any other disability-rights activist. I have been writing about disability-rights issues since 1981, when I wrote a piece on Reagan Admin cuts to disability services for the feminist newspaper Plexus. I think I should have the right to be included on FWD. I am not a bad writer or a bad person. This banning, for no reason that I can see, is really a bit much. But "their blog, their rules"--and they have the right to include and exclude whomever they see fit.

The quality of the writing and subject matter is first rate, which is, of course, why I wanted to be included and why I wanted older women to be included.

At least they haven't banned my IP, so I can still read. At least, not yet!

~*~

EDIT: I have discovered that I am not banned from FWD. I do not know if I was banned, then un-banned (as I suspect) or never-banned, but I see from a comment on one of the contributor's blogs that I am not banned. However, my emails asking why a comment from days ago was moderated/censored (nothing obscene or gross in it) was never answered. When I asked repeatedly if I was banned, again, no answer. I therefore took it that way. (Wouldn't you?) I think if someone asks, they should be replied to--I'm old-fashioned that way!

Delighted that I am not banned. Good news. If this is the fault of their over-zealous spam-queue, it needs major work. If this is a communication issue due to being edited-by-committee, it needs to be tightened up considerably. Believe it or not, there are REAL trolls out there. --DD/10-23-09

~*~

EDIT: Disregard above edit. It appears that after all the hubbub died down, they went ahead and banned me anyway.

So, I WAS correct the first time. --DD/11-18-09

To the people who just got dropped from my blogroll

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF DEAD AIR!


If I am too low-class for you to acknowledge that I even exist, even after I have linked you for over two years, I guess my de-linking certainly won't bother you now.

A reciprocal link would have been nice. Failing that, an acknowledgment that I exist and that I am a human being with emotions, would be pleasant.

If Technorati ratings are important to you, keep in mind, all you had to do was say hello, to keep a link from me. Next time, show some common decency!

Have a nice day.

Welcome to the camp, I guess you all know why we're here

White Rabbit knows I simply could not resist stealing this graphic!! (Stalin as a condom is utterly perfect for this post.)






Okay, sports fans, I have calmed my ass down since Saturday, so that's good.

I still have a variety of hits coming from Heart's hardy Ellen Jamesian faction, the faction currently roasting her on a spit. This sordid spectacle reminded me of some patriarchal lyrics by one of my favorite white men, recalling the mass-defection from another (fictional) cult-leader: We forsake you, gonna rape you, let's forget you, better still.

As Oliver North once so memorably said: I no longer give a rat's patootie.

And several supportive emails I received (yes, my lurkers support me in email!) agreed: It is patently ridiculous to seriously posit the idea that I was the one to viciously hack Heart's website (not even sure what "hacking" involves, the old hippie/borderline-Luddite admitted) and/or the one who "handed over" incriminating Biting Beaver quotes (you know, the blogger I am not sure I ever read?) to the bored-teenaged-male-masses, so they would suddenly hyperventilate on cue and rush over to Heart's blog in a collective fury.

Of course, this begs the question of how one gets teenagers to do what you WANT them to do? Anyone who thinks I have ever possessed this magical ability, has clearly not been reading this blog on any sort of regular basis.

(((sigh)))

The Ellen Jamesian blogs have now taken their various purges private. Damn, I hate that, since I know I am now being discussed and accused of everything but the Manson family murders. I'd like to be able to defend myself against these accusations being made about me behind closed doors, but... well....they wouldn't be Ellen Jamesians if they were open and allowed dissent or discussion. They are welcome to come here and confront me openly. None have, preferring to lob their grenades anonymously and send me threatening, cryptic emails. Trashing someone's reputation is a vicious, evil, nasty thing to do. But I realized long ago, when I first criticized Heart's presidential campaign, that this day would likely come, and Heart (who first made the charges against me) and her defenders/cultists would someday seek revenge. Too bad she waited until her influence was waning and disappearing, though... she might have waged a pretty good war.

I am reminded of Ursula K. LeGuin's novel THE LATHE OF HEAVEN, about George, the hapless fellow whose dreams all come true. A megalomaniacal psychiatrist, Dr Haber, learns of George's amazing dreaming-power while treating him for insomnia; George is afraid to sleep, since he cannot control his dreams. (For example, he dreams his sister dies, and she does.) Thus, the good doctor begins "programming" George to dream about those things Dr Haber WANTS to come true: an end to hunger, an end to war, world peace, etc.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. George can't quite believe there could be a world with no hunger (which is a given in this futuristic novel)...he has never seen or experienced such a thing and cannot envision it. So what George dreams is, there has been a worldwide plague and a large portion of the human race dies off, leaving enough food for everyone remaining. In one of LeGuin's most fabulously-written passages, George slowly wakes and feels himself gain flesh around his middle; he has never before had extra weight. He knows, with a sick, scared, guilt-ridden dread: there is now plenty. Because six-sevenths of the world has died.

Poor George just keeps getting it wrong in exactly this fashion. When he tries to dream of world peace, there is an invasion of aliens, because George just doesn't have it in him to imagine world peace.... there has to be a common enemy to unite the human race. So, there is world peace, all right, but not exactly peace.

And Heart wants to reunite her cult followers, but can't quite do this without introducing a common enemy. Guess who?

Not exactly peace, although it may introduce peace over there in Heartville.

At the end of the novel, the aliens stay...they become part of the new world George has made; a jumble of alternate worlds and histories that he has dreamed. It is incredibly beautiful and poetic, as George (finally cured of his "effective dreaming") embraces the reality he has unwittingly created.

As we all do, of course.

And you know, I don't mind being one of the aliens in feminist Blogdonia, either. Really, I don't. Just allow me the right to stay.

~*~

Turn it up!

Joan Jett & the Blackhearts - Bad Reputation