Change.org

A little while ago an anonymous reader suggested I post to Change.org because it was somehow an instrumental place to post for loud-mouthed progressives. (see the comments under this topic)

I gave it a shot and found it is the place for limp wristed hippy wannabes to whine politely.

On my first post at Change.org (for which I received multiple compliments) I was reprimanded for using the word "rape" to describe what the banks and the recent right wing administration has done and continues to do to poor people. I already cross-posted this here.

Then came this e-mail:

Alan,

There has been a new response posted to the following discussion on Change.org:
Conflicting Interests in Obama's Housing Plan

----------------------------------------------
Alan, please refrain from using the word "raping" as a verb here. It's extremely violent and unnecessary hyperbole that is upsetting in its imagery.

posted by Leigh Graham
----------------------------------------------


Click the link below to view this discussion.
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/conflicting_interests_in_obamas_housing_plan

"Alan, please refrain from using the word "raping" as a verb here."?!? So I could say "the rape of the poor by the rich continues" but not "the rich are raping the poor"?

Now here's the first bit that makes me angry (other than being given a stupid order by a stranger): She did not post this on the forum but sent it to me personally, but via a blind e-mail that made her reply appear as if it were a post. I responded to her the only way available to me (the reply address for the e-mail is "mail@change.org" so I could not reply directly via e-mail) by posting her comment and a rebuttal which unfortunately I did not save a copy of. My response was that I was offended by her censorship and argued that there was class warfare being conducted and just like war in Darfur, this type of rape was being perpetrated against the poor by the rich. I explained in detail how rape was the perfect analogy for what's going on both because it is horrible but also because it can be repeated unlike most other acts of war that involve killing people. I did not use any commonly acknowledged profanity (unlike here in this blog) and the argument was well crafted.

I even argued that she should feel free to delete any of my language they find disagreeable as long as they put "[censored]" in its place.

Rather than reply in the forum Leigh Graham deleted the rebuttal and sent me this e-mail:

Alan Miller,

Your comment on the blog entry entitled 'Conflicting Interests in Obama's Housing Plan' has been removed from the Poverty in America community on Change.org by an administrator.

---------------------------------------------------------------
REASON: Alan, As I thought, your word choice has upset other readers. I was sent an abuse report and asked to consider deleting your comment. I am going to do so. My site, my rules, and I find your English degree pales in comparison to a rape survivor's emotional health as justification for using the word versus not.
---------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any questions please read the Terms of Service or contact us at help@change.org.

- Change.org

I replied to the e-mail notification despite the fact I'm sure it vanished into nothingness at change.org, but here it is anyway:

Censorship is censorship.

Welcome to post freedom America

"My site, my rules." [self censored obscenity]. That's not Democratic, it's not politic, and it makes your forum worthless. If you can't argue then don't host a public forum. If opinions cannot be expressed in commonly acceptable language (i.e. if you can say it on the radio and not get fined) then expression is restricted and violated.

This is why I won't post on stupid, bullshit, politically correct sites like this. This is why the Democratic party will lose again to the Republicans. The Republicans make up a problem and then talk about it with fiery, populist rhetoric. The Democrats are so afraid they might offend someone even though they are totally right, all their language is watered down, milky, and devoid of passion or righteousness. Rather than call a spade a spade they feel they have to call it "that triple lobed playing card emblem." It's bogus, it's weak, and it's typical. Better not use the word "puppy" as a noun because someone might be allergic to dogs!

I don't want anything to do with a bunch of pussies like that. I will not be party to censorship of any kind, especially when it is of this overly aggressive politically correct variety. All change.org has managed to do for me is make me angry. Fucking worthless.

Democratic Convention Coverage

So we decided to watch and listen to the opening speeches of the DNC last night. In the living room KET (that's Kentucky Educational Television) was showing PBS's coverage while in the kitchen NPR's coverage was playing. While visiting my aunt we also saw some of CNN's coverage. I must say I was more than disappointed by both NPR and PBS. I expect breathless excitement and self centered reporting from CNN et. al. but I expected to hear and see the speakers on public broadcasting. Unfortunately narcissism was running unchecked on both outlets with constant talking and "analysis" from overly large cadres of the usual talking heads on both channels. While a former Republican was giving an excellent speech, NPR's staff was burbling about how signs were being handed out, and interviewing people on the floor. During the introduction for that speaker (which was a good speech in and of itself), PBS was showing their panel of "experts" analyzing something that hadn't even happened yet! NPR's coverage was particularly vacuuous with numerous mentions by the staff members of their own shows where they will have plenty of time to analyze the speeches the next day!


In short I give our public broadcasters a big F for failure. CNN, Fox, and the rest of the 24 hour "news" vomit on cable are doing just fine at talking breathlessly about how important they and their coverage are. PBS and NPR should shut the fuck up and let us hear the speeches.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Once again from Media Matters:

There has been a fairly big stink lately about Obama opting out of public financing in this election. His reasoning seems pretty right on to me: 1. He can raise far more money from small donors the way he has been than he could get under the public finance rules. 2. The big money interests that stand against him are free to spend unlimited amounts to oppose him. These big money interests will not be attacking McCain therefore giving him a huge advantage even though his campaign itself will be raising less money.

A bigger problem with the big stink being made in "the media" is that McCain did the same flip-flop though in his case he backed out after he had legally accepted public financing. And true to Republican style, this may be a crime that could put Mr. McCain in prison. Oddly enough this is not being reported by the press for the most part, especially considering the amount of blithering that is coming from the pundit class about Obama openly backing away from public financing in a legal manner.

And the right wing press has gone so far as to state that no 527's have attacked Obama while there have been at least four ads released already. It would appear that the media covering McCain is so enamored of him they feel disinclined to point out the hypocrisy (and possible criminality) of his own tinkering with campaign finance. This from the man that co-wrote the current legislation! It must be nice enough to be able to write loopholes into the law for yourself, but even better if you can just ignore the law that your wrote. Ah, to be a Republican and be free of all ethical and moral values.