Palin - The Never-Ending Scary Tale

I've been away from Bombastic for a bit - working on other blogs where I exercise my more spiritual/nice side. Perhaps - like Tiger Woods - I need to balance two diametrically opposed parts of myself - the one that rages against the idiot machine and the one who seeks to understand the universe and hold it in compassion.

Today... I'm in a ranting mood.

So here is a great link on Sarah Palin - and it's great to me because it highlights the true nature of the beast... like how she makes up her story in her head and misquotes others and downright lies (to herself and others) to promote her Sarah's Sweet Song of the Yukon.

I can't do it justice - read for yourself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/deja-vu-all-over-again-pa_b_389706.html

The Math of Angry Noise

This was originally posted on my other blog on 2/22/09 after reading a particularly fine piece by Marc Ambinder...

Gotta love the post by Marc Ambinder on "The Outrage Industrial Complex." Yes, outrage is being overextended and likely headed for an eventual meltdown. But the best part of Marc's post had to do with the mathematics of how we decide, as a society, what things are important.

As a geek, I love mathematics. And here is what Marc postulates - that Pi = (Ci + O)*L. In lay language:

what we THINK is important (Pi - perceived importance)

equals...

ACTUAL importance (Ci - cosmic importance)
plus
expressed Outrage (O)
times
Loudness (L)

So solving for Pi (perceived importance), if you want to make something seem VERY important, express as much Outrage as you can, as Loudly as you can. If its actual importance (Ci) is small, you just have to put more Outrage into the formula and amp up the volume.

Brilliant!

Interestingly, the only 'fixed' or 'unchanging' value in the equation is the actual importance (Ci). We can't make something more important than it actually is. But in keeping the Loudness and Outrage variables low, the Perceived importance is also small. So sometimes, a thing that is actually really important will not be given the attention it deserves because there is not enough Outrage or Loudness attached to it.

A lesson for those of us who want to increase the media profile of a thing... take a lesson from Limbaugh - say it loud and with as much righteous indignation as possible. It doesn't matter if you make sense - sense is not part of the equation - just make an angry noise.

Read Marc's post here:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/_a_washington-based_journalist_and.php

Bombastic Versus

This is the rant that inspired the Bombastic Verses blog... orignal post date was Mar 7, 2009

So the big faux story lately - Is Rush Limbaugh the head/face/torso/massive ass of the GOP?The verdict isn't in yet. But there's a similarity in Rush's populist power and that of another charismatic and immensely popular guy amongst social conservatives - the Ayatollah Khomeini.

A silly comparison that bears no consideration? Maybe not...

Khomeini was the face of social conservative, religious right Islam in the Western culture, and Limbaugh is the face of that same group here in America today.

More importantly, the Ayatollah didn't like apostates, and neither does Rush. If you are a Republican and you dare criticize his ideology, you can expect a fatwa. Rush may not call for your actual death (as Khomeini called for the death of Salman Rushdie after 'Satanic Verses'), but Limbaugh will call for your political demise.

Look out a little wider to see the resemblance between Dittoheads and Islam's Wahhabist movement.

Dittoheads/Wahhabists are fundamentalist believers in the ideology of strictly defined Christian/Islamic social conservatism. One says 'Jesus', the other says 'Allah', but both want to lead us backward in time to a place where they believe society was better - either the Reagan years of the 1980s, or the Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab years of the 1780s.

Those pesky Wahhabic/Dittohead movements want to purify Islam/GOP by returning Muslims/Republicans to what al-Wahhab/El Rushbo believed were the original principles of Islam/GOP, as typified by the Salaf/Social Conservatism (righteous ancestors, e.g., al-Wahhab/Reagan) and rejecting what they regard as corruptions introduced by Bid'ah/New Ideas (innovation) and Shirk/Solutions besides tax breaks (polytheism, or more than one method to solve our problems).

When I hear conservative drive-by diatribes on the radio, I hear echoes of other times, other places, and I wonder - What will the American Social Conservative burkha look like, and can I wear jeans under it on Casual Fridays?

You might say I'm just borrowing trouble. But just in case I think we should start practicing now the chant of the next Republican convention... Limbaugh Akbar!

Young Boy has Grown-up Courage

So a 10-year-old boy has the courage of his convictions and chooses, respectfully, not to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance because there is not "liberty and justice for all" - meaning, specifically, gays and lesbians don't also enjoy the civil rights of other citizens.

My hat is off to this young person. He's way more grown-up about this than I am. Have you read my posts here?

Good job, Son!

at Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/10-year-old-wont-pledge-a_n_355709.html

support from Arkansas:
http://arkansasnews.com/2009/10/15/hey-kid-youd-better-make-that-pledge/

WestBank Side Story

I want to offer a new perspective on the whole Israel-Palestine story. In particular, I want to 'bring it home' in a way Americans might relate to.

I'm going to take a community in California and see if overlaying the Israel-Palestinian conflict in terms of a U.S. community can help clarify the underlying story that has become such a bitch of a problem to the world.

Let me introduce you to the example town - Sacramento. Sacramento is the capital of California, so it's a government town, but it is also agricultural and is surrounded by farmland. Next to Sacramento, across the majestic Sacramento River, is a smaller city called West Sacramento. This area is the location of my hypothetical Middle East/West Bank story.

Now... it turns out that earlier in the history of California, Mexicans (or their Spanish ancestors) lived in the Sacramento Valley. In fact, "Sacramento" is a Spanish word for 'sacrament' - so Sacramento is also a Holy city, of sorts.

For purposes of the story, let's say that this certain group of descendants from previous occupants of the Sacramento area petitions the U.N. and says "This place Sacramento is our ancestral home and we have a right to live there. We were kicked out. We want it back." Perhaps in this scenario Mexico and some South American countries are supplying China with a lot of oil, and China has increased its position as a world power, the U.S. is indebted to China and - after many meetings and push comes to shove - the U.N. agrees that Sacramento really does belong to the descendants of the Mexicans that lived there in the 1800s and agrees to give them back Sacramento.

So what happens to the people currently living in Sacramento that - by the way - had nothing to do with evicting those previous residents from the area and have themselves lived in Sacramento for many years, as have their ancestors, and who have property and business and homes that would be taken away from them?

According to the Israel-Palestine model, the U.N. makes all current residents of Sacramento move to West Sacramento (a much smaller area with fewer resources) and gives away all the homes and property in Sacramento to the incoming new residents.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see just how well that would go over with (1) the rest of the U.S. population (aka Arab world) or (2) those directly affected who used to live in Sacramento but are now refugees in West Sacramento (aka removed Palestinians). I think many U.S. citizens would share the pain of those Sacramentans that were pulled from their homes to see them bulldozed or taken over by new owners. I think many U.S. citizens might also feel a degree of animosity toward those parties of the world that made this happen.

I have family in Sacramento, and I know there is a certain tension between the White and Mexican population there. It's a tension based on economics and immigration (illegal, they remind me). Given this tension, my Sacramento family would be more hurt if they were evicted from their homes by Mexicans than any other group except the Taliban.

And you know what - maybe that's how Palestinians feel too. Maybe the fact that they have been evicted from homes and land that has been in their families for generations by a group of people who they aren't that fond of in the first place does not sit easily in their hearts and minds. Maybe they are so angry at the injustice of it, at their powerlessness to do anything about it given the rest of the world's support of it that they get violent. I don't approve of a violent response, but I sure as heck understand it. And I challenge anyone who says that if they were put in the Palestinians' shoes they wouldn't be mad as hell too.

Now tack on the fact that all goods and services into our hypothetical West Sacramento Bank are blockaded and only 'humanitarian supplies' like water and food and some medicines can get in. The situation worsens in that not only are the refugees from Sacramento being denied access to goods and services, but those goods and services are being denied to the original residents of West Sacramento as well. So the residents and refugees in West Sacramento build tunnels for miles and miles so they can bring in plastic chairs, clothes, and - yes - guns and other weapons of violence.

I haven't even gone into the restrictions on the freedom of movement between West Sacramento and Sacramento or other issues facing the Sacramento/Palestinians today. The indignities are so numerous and varied, and strike at the core of human rights. And it's true that the Jews have had a lot of hardships and endured many setbacks and tragedies throughout their history. But so have many peoples - peoples and cultures and societies that don't use past hardships or tragedies as an excuse to do unto others what they decry was done unto them.

Israel has set up a new apartheid dynamic, and is using its experience of oppression as its permission to oppress others. In doing and/or supporting this, modern Jews are sacrificing not only their heritage as a great culture, but Israel's credibility as a member of the global community. It's moving out of model country and into oppressive regime. This does not look good on the resume. Modern Israel can and must do better - it can still redeem itself.

I think if the world knew in the 1940s the way the country of Israel was going to be acting now, there would have been a different solution to a new homeland for the Jews. Maybe Sacramento.

Men Continue to Punish Women for Having Sex

Okay... the House just passed their version of the Health Reform bill - with a provision disallowing any funding for abortions. I don't know yet about provisions to allow birth control. But I can absolutely guarantee you that the bill includes paying for Erectile Dysfunction drugs.

It's not logical, but the fact remains - in our culture, men are still ambivalent about women having sex. Sure MEN want to have sex with women; but women having sex... isn't that kinda sinful? Shouldn't women who choose to be sexual beings have to suffer some consequences for that choice? Shouldn't they have to pay - either for their own birth control or for abortions from when they had sex with their Cialias-taking boyfriend who couldn't stick it to them without first sticking them with any bills that may result from having such questionable moral character?

Remember the big brouhaha over how health insurance covered little blue pills but not birth control pills? That changed only when it was brought to light and the double standard of Viagra Yes/Birth Control No became a political hot potato for the insurance companies.

To alleviate this imbalance, I propose all present and future policies affecting sexual and reproductive health for men be tied to sexual and reproductive health coverage for women. If that were the case, women would never have to worry about reproductive health care again.

RINO - The New "N-word"

I had a conversation with a family member recently. She went on for several minutes ranting about Newt Gingrich, and how he had turned traitor to America. I guess Newt had the audacity to support a moderate Republican instead of a conservative who was running for office in a congressional district that the conservative candidate didn't even live in (a minor detail). This travesty clearly put Newt right up there with Benedict Arnold and (I kid you not) John McCain, whose transgression I forget but, according to my relative, was egregious enough to morph McCain from "true American hero" to "subversive Liberal operative" in one 24-hour talk radio cycle.

But back to Newt.

My relative spent a lot of her time decrying the scourge of RINOs and how they ruined this country and needed to be purged from the Republican party. Since she was high on Righteous Indignation, it took her a while to catch her breath; but when she did I slipped in a tentative "Uh, you know I'm a RINO, right?"

A gravid pause ensued, during which I could hear the gears grinding as she worked to reconcile this new information that a person she liked and was related to was also evil. While I waited to see what would happen next, I considered what took me so long to speak up.

See, normally I would not have said anything to contradict her on something she so strongly believes because she is a woman I have deep respect for. She has worked hard her whole life, lived to be of service, cared for the ill and infirm, sacrificed (without playing martyr) for the people she loves, lived through incredible hardships and survived and sometimes thrived, all the while doing her best to lift up others - and I honor her for that. So usually during conversations on politics I try to go along where I can - highlight those areas where we agree and gently offer alternative ways of viewing things where we disagree.

But not today. I was tired of it. I felt like I'd been living in the closet for too long and it was time to come out. So I did.

"I'm here. I'm a RINO. Get used to it."

What happened after that was as illuminating as it was anti-climactic. After establishing that I was not in favor of a government takeover of every aspect of American life or of taking away freedom of speech, or a socialist out to subvert the rights of small business owners, she admitted "Well, I don't even know what a RINO is."

Really? After all that vitriol against RINOs, she didn't even know what they were. Huh.

So I told her "RINO means Republican In Name Only. It's the name that conservative rightwing Republicans give to moderate Republicans to put them down, make them less human, and chase them out of the party in order to ensure ideological purity. It's kind of like racial purity, only without the political incorrectness."

After that she changed the subject then got off the phone. But it got me thinking... RINO is the new N-word of the angry social conservative.

Furthermore, it's not the RINOs that are the problem with the GOP. It's not the moderates who need to be vilified and labeled as something evil and out to ruin the Republican party and the entirety of America.

Take a look around the world – it’s not the moderate groups that get the flashy clever names, no. Those self-identifying monikers go to the extremist groups.

Let me give one example. There is a group out there in the world that is also seeking ideological purity, they are called “the Taliban”. There are big differences, sure, on how the conservative rightwingers and the Taliban execute the removal of the not-quite-rigid-enough believers – but the principle of ideolgical purity is something they share. For apostates it’s off with their head – literally or politically.

So instead of the social rightwingers in my party claiming the right of the inheritance to the name that belongs truly to the plurality, to the moderates, to the big tent folks, I propose we come up with a name for our purist extremistsbrethren . They will appreciate the street cred of a flashy name, I’m sure – and they can graffiti it at their next rally next to their Obama as Hitler signs.

Here are a few ideas from me.

CREEPS - Conservative Rightwingers Exclaim Every Policy Socialism
CROWs - Conservative Rightwingers Only Whine
CRIPTs - Conservative Rightwingers Insist on Purity of Thought
CRAP - Conservative Rightwingers Absent Policies

I’m kinda stuck on “conservative rightwingers” right now... that "CR" sound appeals to me. But I'm not married to it - so please feel free to submit your own ideas.

The Audacity of Vote

There's a great column by Mike Alvear at the Huffington Post on what Thomas Jefferson would think if Group A was able to vote on whether Group B gets to have the same rights they do. The column’s point is theoretical in nature - but oh wait, it really happened. In Maine - and with sad yet predictable results – they voted to deny gays the right to marry.

The whole situation reminds me of a country club that gathers to select who gets to join and share the great honor of eating in the Club’s dining room off the good china. Americans - regular Americans - Real Americans - don't like that kind of elitist snob-knobbery - unless, of course, the Club is for straights and the elitism is directed toward The Gays.

The reason it's so easy for people to vote against gay rights is because either you are or you aren't gay - and if you aren't, you're safe. It doesn't matter if gays are denied the rights and privileges afforded to straight people, because more than likely straight people are still going to be straight tomorrow and for many years to come, and the chance that they turn gay and end up regretting tomorrow the vote they cast today is slim to none.

This is not a moral issue. If it was a moral issue, we would have laws denying rights to other moral lawbreakers – like adulterers. Remember, adultery is such a biggie in the Moral No-No list that it actually made it to the Big Ten. Being gay, not so much. Barely a mention in the Old Testament. Adultery, Stealing, and taking the Lord’s name in vain – now that should get you some rights removal – IF it’s all about God.

But it’s not about God – it’s about two things: sex and feeling better about our own sins because at least we aren’t gay.

Marriage is a Civil Right – not a religious right. Atheists can get married. So can people who break all kinds of commandments – including murderers, adulterers, liars, and bank robbers. Other groups not specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments includes pedophiles, drug dealers, tax cheats, rapists, and perpetrators of domestic violence. Their Civil Right to marry will never be denied – unless, of course, they are gay.

Not so long ago, my spouse and I would not have been able to marry because our skin is a different color. Now people aren’t allowed to marry if they aren’t different enough. The same arguments were posited in the past against opposite (skin color) marriage as they are now against same (gender) marriage... and it's a shame and mind-boggling and pathetic that people are still in that place.

My hope is that sooner than later, we as a country can remove the stain of this continuing societal sin and give our gay citizens the rights they deserve as humans, let alone the rights they deserve as Americans. Seriously people – doesn’t it embarrass us as a nation when we vote to keep our brothers and sisters second-class citizens? Do the similarities with our previous fights for a woman’s right to vote, equal rights for blacks (to vote and eat at the same table with us) and women (to own property in their own name) escape us totally?

Really, America? Is this the best we can do?

To read Mike Alvear’s column, go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-alvear/what-thomas-jefferson-wou_b_342300.html
“There is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them.” ~ Mike Alvear

The RNC Owes Me Money

A letter to the RNC in response to a survey/contribution request.

Chairman Steele –

I received the RNC survey this weekend. It was disconcerting, yet depressingly expected, to see the questions phrased in the spirit of “do you support wife-beating, like the Democrats do?” This survey was not a tool to collect information from me; it was a tool to influence me, aka ‘propaganda’. Using an example you must be familiar with, since I hear it so often lately from my fellow GOPers –“The Nazis used propaganda to vilify the Jews.”

As for the contribution request attached to the ‘survey’, I believe the RNC owes me money for damages to my reputation as a sane person whenever I admit I’m a Republican.

Also, I deserve a refund for all the Republicans we have elected into office who are being paid for nothing but obstructionism and peacocking for political purposes. While they are honing their skills as bombastic blowhards, and doing deep knee bends to gain the strength and flexibility necessary to kiss the buttocks of whichever shrill radio host they might offend (remember when you did that to Rush?), they are too busy to perform constructive work toward Solving Problems we non-elected Americans all share.

But wait, there’s more! Not only are we getting nothing – we’re getting Worse Than Nothing in the form of the lewd, lascivious and sometimes illegal actions of our elected representatives. Let me count the ways… SENATOR David Vitter, GOVERNOR Mark Sanford, SENATOR John Ensign and, in my own state, ASSEMBLYMAN “Hot Mike” Duvall. These fine Republican pillars can’t keep their pillars in their pants – yet still feel entitled to tell the rest of us how to live. Some even broke the law – but that appears to be fine with the RNC. As long as the perp (or perv) has an “R” attached to his name, it seems that’s all the GOP requires of someone they lift up to represent the character of the American People.

I will let you determine how much the RNC owes me in damages and failure to perform their duties. I’m sure the amount will be ‘zero’ – because at this point, ‘zero’ is all I expect from you.

I sincerely remain humiliated to be a Republican,

TL Chin

PS – In case you are unfamiliar with Propaganda, here is a little history. I did some fact-checking, at the level I’m sure you’re accustomed to there – using Wikipedia.

Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Irish Ad on Gay Marriage

Called "Sinead's Hand" - this video ad about gay marriage is making the rounds on YouTube. Personally, I think it's brilliant. You can decide for yourself... the video is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Losing My Religion

Well, it had to happen sometime, I guess.

When I was 9, I was reading my Bible books on missionaries in Africa. They were picture books, with lots of angels and little African children. But the missionary and all the angels were White - and I wondered why God didn't have any Black angels, especially for the African kids. Noting the underlying racism in the angel corps as a symptom of a larger underlying problem, I put the book down and walked away from religion.

I lived happily away from God and God's local social networking group - Christianity - until my 30s. Then I started developing a relationship with something - a God of my understanding. And years after I put down the angel book I picked up another book - "What's So Amazing About Grace?" It talked about how the concept of Grace was unique to Christianity. Well, I liked the concept of Grace - very much. So I threw caution to the wind and took a leap back into the Christian faith. (Well, it was more a slow wading in, and always staying near the edge just in case.)

I settled into Christianity and I stayed there... still uneasy, but trying to take the good with the parts that still didn't fit.

And then Obama was elected President of the United States - and people across the country started going batshit.

Now there are Nazi pictures with Obama's face, and 'good Christians' packing guns to rallies to protest health care reform.

You know, when I studied the Bible, I learned that it mentions the poor and helping the poor about 600 times. Jesus even tells his followers to give up everything to follow him. But you'd think the protestors never read any of that by the way they are acting - "I gotta keep mine, and F the rest of the folks. I'm not going to help out any losers... my taxes might go up or I might have to wait in line. So what if they have NO care; I want a same-day appointment!"

I thwacked myself on the forehead for being so gullible, and promptly apologized to that 9-year-old me - she had it right. Just as there were no Black angels for the little African children, there is no grace in the current Christian public face.

So I'm back to conversing with the God of my understanding - a God who remembers the poor and the planet and stays out of politics. And from what I know of Jesus, I think he's is right there with me, wondering how his message got so twisted - and just what happened to that amazing grace.

There's a New Drug in Town

There's a new drug of choice making big inroads in the world - and not only where you expect drugs to be, but smack dab in Real America. It's dangerous and addictive - but no drug czar can or will ever be able to touch it. The Taliban and other groups will be able to use it to support their causes - it will make some people very rich and undermine governments - wreak death and havoc en masse, and destroy families and friendships and communities at the local level. It's dangerous indeed - but if I got caught with it right now, I could not be arrested. I might actually be raised up, quoted, get a TV or radio show - because using this drug is encouraged through American media and other outlets around the world.

What is it?

Righteous Indignation.

"But righteous indignation is not a drug" some say. I disagree.

Righteous Indignation (or RI) alters the chemistry of the brain - like drugs do. Try talking sense to someone who has just taken a big hit of RI. They can go on some badass trips. One person may decide to blow himself and any number of innocents up. Another might kill a doctor in church - totally confident that he is doing the 'right thing.'

Someone high on RI can go for hours and hours - like on a crack binge. Excited talking, arms gesturing, oblivious to the signs of others around them who are slowly backing up toward the doorway to make their escape, focusing only on those real or imaged persons who are sharing the same trip.

The other reason RI qualifies as a drug is that - like alcohol, narcotics, etc. - it affects families. I've lost a few family members to RI. Interacting with them, when necessary, I can see them reaching for the next hit – sidling up to me to see if I'm holding, if I want to share. They posit a topic close to their hearts - "I heard Obama is a communist" - and wait for me to respond. If I'm on board, our shared indignation feeds the other - and we both get a hit of RI. Up on our high horses, we pass it around and get revved up, maybe go listen to Rush to add to our rush.

It's a strong and powerful high that gives a person a lot of energy - and I admit I have partaken from time to time. I mean, I get juiced on RI whenever I hear someone speak against gay rights. I go nuts on my high-horseyness. So I know that it's hard to get off that RI once you're on it.

The sad fact is – there is more than enough heartache in the world, more than enough relationships and positive progress lost because so many are partaking of one drug or another and spending their energy either getting high or looking for the next hit. And unfortunately, this ‘new’ drug - this RI - is going to be tough to deal with because we all partake and sometimes we self-medicate with it. We might, however, learn more about overcoming the usual addictions by addressing the damage of RI addiction. After all, addictions are but a symptom of a deeper disease of the spirit. Maybe by working to move away from the anger and bitterness of RI, we can find a model to better combat addictions to other mind-altering substances.

It could happen.

In the meantime, "Hey, Mom, I'm not holding... okay?"

Missing John McCain

Great column by Seth Pendleton on the lack of courage in the Republican party to challenge the crazy and fight for America here at home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-pendleton/missing-john-mccain_b_260992.html

A New Standard for American Crazy

Just when I thought I had heard it all, with the histrionics over death squads picking off Nana like a kid at the fair trying to win a bear for his girlfriend, I see a story that not 1, not 2, but 12 people carrying guns were among the protesters outside the building where the US President was giving a speech. One of those people wasn't carrying just any gun - no. It was a semi-automatic assault rifle - an AR-15.

Why was he packing such formidable heat?

Because he could.

Whuh?

And even more confusing - it's hardly being reported.

Question - America, where the hell are the adults in this society? Is everyone like an idiot teenager? No wonder you're worried about death squads. A gun is no good if you don't use it, and Nana's as good a target as any.

Me Tarzan, You God

"If horses had a god, it would look like a horse."

That bit of wisdom has informed my relationship with God, and how I appreciate or rub up against others' relationships with God, because...

How God is defined is not about God; it is about each of us. How we see God is determined by our experiences of self and other, and how we shape that experience into a God we relate to.

We can inherit the God of our parents or community, but that is the God we start with - a God with training wheels. As we grow older and have more experiences of our own, that God may or may not change and evolve.

As long as we keep our God and that relationship personal, whatever kind of God we have is our own business. What crosses the line, however, is when someone tells me - or anyone else - that their God is the Right God, the Only God for everyone.

A God that is imposed upon me may not fit. What if it's horse shaped and I am not? What if I have a God that fits me just right - or at least we're working on it? Make your God my God? No can do.

The God for one is not the God for all - and that is why it is vital that God is kept out of government. Because once God gets into government, it's not only One God Fits All, it's enforced with guns and jail and repression.

Maybe the phrase needs an updated twist: "When government has a God, it looks like tyranny."

Pulitzer Prize Nominations for Web Journalism

I think it's time for a new Pulitzer to be awarded - one for web jounalism.

I say this not only because the internet is growing as a journalistic entity - but also because of the effect of tweets and postings during the post-election upheaval in Iran. Things are still very dicey there, still very much in flux. But had it not been for the information leaked out of the country on the torture, killings, and oppression, the clamp-down and repression may have never been known, and countless more would have perished at the hands of power-hungry dictocrats and thugs.

So let me begin the nominations for web-based journalism on Iran:
Best real-time blogging by U.S. journalist: Nico Pitney, Huffington Post
Best recap blogging: The Green Brief, by Josh Shahryar
Best on-the-ground tweets: PersianKiwi (wherever you are)
Best out-of-Iran tweets: OxfordGirl
Best website: Tehran Bureau

And for the Nobel Peace Prize - I nominate Haystack, for working to develop a tool to allow free speech in repressed regimes. The peace of the world depends on the freedom of speech and the press.

Thanks to you all.

Do you have any other suggestions?

You can post them here in the comments section, or send them to:
pulitzer@pulitzer.org
comments@nobelprize.org

I'm Sorry, Anonymous Caller

This morning I got a phone call from the RNC (Republican National Committee), trying to scare me about the Evils of Health Care Reform. It didn't take the young woman on the other end of the line very long to get to the part where the government was trying to get power to decide if my doctor could treat me or whether my grandmother would be allowed to live. That's when I broke my silence and spoke up.

"That's not true."

There was a surprised pause, and then she repeated the last bit in the hopes that, with the second telling, I would get the subtleties I clearly missed the first go-round.

"But that's not true," I repeated. "Health care is a complicated issue, and what you're saying are talking points meant to scare people."

At this point she was a little flustered, and I was frustrated and angry. That's when I said what I now regret... "I don't have to listen to this shit."

My anger toward the message, coming as it did on an otherwise quiet Saturday morning, was quickly replaced with anger toward myself. Why do I ever use obscenities in conversation? It doesn't matter if I believe that what is being spoken is obscene, it just doesn't work. As soon as the potty talk comes into the conversation, every valid point I might have offered goes out the window. It is the singularly most counterproductive element to oral discourse.

What I should have said is "When I hear these false statements coming from my own party, I feel humiliated. It is as if our platform is to make people as scared and stupid as possible. It demeans us all."

Instead, I demeaned myself, and I spoke in harsh language to this young woman.

I hope she was getting paid for her calling, and not doing it as a volunteer. I can appreciate how hard it is to get a job in this economy. I might say things I don't believe in order to pay my rent. I get that.

Nevertheless, if I had it to do over again, I would have shown her the civility I long for in our public discourse right now. Instead I fell into the trap myself. If the regret I have been feeling since that call is any indication of the depth of the lesson learned through this experience, I won't be uncivil to anyone ever again.

So to you, anonymous caller, I'm sorry for what I said. If it's any consolation, because of you I will not do that again. And I'm glad, at least, I did not hang up on you, but that we exchanged good-byes before we disconnected. That civility, at least, we were able to maintain.

Sarah Palin, meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Great story at Salon.com
Here's the link
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/03/palin_ahmadinejad/index.html

I have been saying this for some time. Glad to see I'm not alone.

Declaring a Fatwa on Stupidity

This blog was originally created to illuminate and combat some of the more heinous crimes against common sense that I see going on around me in my own country. But the US is not the only place to spot stupidity - just the most geographically convenient and familiar.

However, given the changes and challenges I see in Iran and other places around the world, I have decided to expand my horizons and point out principles that cover most if not all societies as they work to evolve toward, hopefully, more rational and reasonable entities meant to protect and serve their citizenry and not themselves.

And yes... I must now declare a fatwa on myself, since the belief that a country would exist to serve its people and not the people in power does itself qualify as superbly stupid.

Oh, well... I guess the fatwas start here.

The Green Brief

For my fellow travellers following the events in Iran since June - please don't miss this source of news and information. The Green Brief is written by NiteOwl AKA Josh Shahryar(on twitter twitter.com/iran_translator). I have a link to his posts in my Blog list. Follow NiteOwl for the latest in this continuing struggle for more freedoms and advancements in Iran.

Power has a Survival Instinct

I support the Green opposition movement in Iran. And in the spirit of that support I'm going to be posting some thoughts that - I hope - will support them in the struggle toward more freedoms for the Iranian people and a stronger Iran.

First things first - Power Lives and has a strong Survival Instinct

The current Power Establishment in Iran is not just a collection of people – Ahmadi, Khamenei, Revolutionary Guard, etc. The Power Establishment is a living organism - and it has a Strong survival instinct. Know this - it will resort to the lowest form of battle and commit any atrocity in order to survive. As any living creature - it will do what it takes to live.

If it's wounded, it's going to become more viscious. If it's desparate and sees a way it can survive, it may be more open to compromise. Even if it has to sacrifice some parts of itself, if the body itself can survive, it may be willing to lose some limbs.

If there is a way to link the future survival and evolution of whatever can be saved within the Power Establishment - in a positive way - to the opposition movement, it may be easier to make and maintain changes.

I say this knowing that some horrible and unjust acts will go unpunished. Hopefully all atrocities will be revealed - and some form of justice enacted - but compromise will need to be reached and not everyone will be happy.

And I say these things because revolutions are full of furvor and idealism, but governing is full of pragmatism and compromise, and people are full of fear and greed - so those who govern tend to start making decisions based less on the good of the people/country and more on the good for themselves. Only vigilance and an eye on principles of freedom and law will keep the Green movement from ultimately becoming what they resist now.

My prayers are with all of you. Your cause is the cause of humanity, and Allah is with the oppressed, not the oppressors.

Allahu Akbar!