Secrets and lies: LOL attacked by anonymous blogger
April 27, 2008 | Filed Under Opinion and Commentary, Uh-oh | 3 Comments
Wow. I just found a really nasty slam against Livingston Out Loud in general and me personally. The slam, which appeared on February 24 in an anonymous post on the Livingston blog youworkforus, would be considered libel if the blogosphere were not so loose on these matters, or if I had half the inclination to litigate that the likely writer of this slam does. Although I hesitate to give this sort of blog attention, I find its combination of libel and secrecy to be newsworthy.
Here is the post from youworkforus:
Cyberterrorism in “Livingston (Lying) Out Loud”
“This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.” When members of a community can no longer, even in jest, talk honestly with each other without being censored on line by what can only be called a blatant form of intimidation and there is no refutation of falsehoods, then they face their collective loss of Constitutional rights. The battle for freedom is mostly fought, ironically not in the streets of Bagdad, but at the local level and here the kind, honest and fair-minded Livingston residents must not yield to the machinations of a twisted mind like the author of “Livingston Out Loud.” Her ramblings do not represent our community and it is an outrage that she uses our name in her tirades. There may be a reason that author could have been given a golden corporate parachute, lost any local businesses attempted, was on local boards for a very, very short time before finally being rejected, and generally is shunned in the community in spite of her personal endorsement by the local paper and her good friend Vicki Blakeman. Local people call the blog site “Livingston Lying Out Loud” because the blog site contains more half truths than a month of Bill O’Reilley comments on Fox News and the author of those also half lies, apparently has no conscience and certainly no sense of human decency. Generally speaking, Livingston community members have stopped looking at the blog site mostly because of its malicious nature, but apparently the author, lost in what seems to be her narcissistic belief that she runs this community with a poison pen, and lost in intellectual self-message, continues her path of attempting to harm the lives of others with no accountability—thus far. But the people she supports most and from whom she gets the greatest part of her encouragement in her efforts at cyberterrorism, Vicki Blakeman, Steve Caldwell, and Mary Beebe, may well be also harmed by the authors tenor in her writing in the long run. One can only hope that during a George Bush administration, with its Patriot act, its attempt to take away first amendment rights, and its attack on innocent people, that the trickle down effect of his policies to the local level can be reversed by the good intentions of those Montanans who would stand up for basic human rights on either side of the political spectrum.
Who are these people ranting about Livingston Out Loud and making things up about me?
The youworkforus blog carries infrequent and somewhat rambling angry posts about the old East Side School flap with the City Commission. But its author, or authors, are in the closet. The youworkforus “VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE” link offers no profile, no author names, and no blog owner: 
I can’t think of s single blog that is written in secret or without some kind of “about” information. Regardless of what you think about the East School issue (I’m neutral because that issue doesn’t interest me), reasonable people would think that this blogger is “attempting to harm the lives of others with no accountability.” However, that February 24 post does suggest that youworkforus is the work of someone well known in Livingston for such attacks and libelous remarks about people who disagree with her. It bears the same hallmarks as those attacks and letters to the editor: half-baked assertions and misrepresentations of fact, the same “enemies list,” similar language (the meaningless expression “intellectual self-message,” critics are “terrorists”), the nonsensical and paranoid reference to newspaper endorsements of private citizens, the misspellings and strange syntax, and the invocation of general human rights and decency in a text full of indecent violations of the rights of others.
The claim that “she [me, the LOL editor] uses our name in her tirades” is more than a bit of a giveaway, too. I cannot have referred to authors whose names I do not know, and I have never used the name of the youworkforus blog itself until today. That must mean that the writer of the February 24 blog post has been mentioned at some time on this blog. I can think of only one person whose name appeared in a post on this blog, and whose style of attack matches that of the February 24 diatribe, who has an interest in the East Side School blog content, and who has attacked me and LOL before.
My guess about the identity of the secret youworkforus blogger is more than plausible, but given that the blog remains unsigned and covert, it will have to remain a guess–”thus far.”
On one thing, my secretive youworkforus blog critic and I do agree, even if LOL practices it and youworkforus does not. People in the blogosphere ought to be accountable. I might be flip, or politically incorrect because I dare to talk about local politics with occasional irreverence. But I have always been accountable, by checking facts, making it clear that I am asserting my opinions or offering satire, identifying myself on LOL’s “About” page, and expressing a willingness to take contributions and comments on the blog.
Nobody enjoys being lied about, even if it comes from people whose writing reflects instability. Rant about me if you will, but keep to the facts, and keep it sane, please.
The facts
In “the Hollow Men,” what T.S, Eliot wrote was, “This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper.” The poem bears no relation to the content of the youworkforus post, of course, but the babble in that post suggests that a better epigram from the same poem would have been: “Here we go round the prickly pear/At five o’clock in the morning.”
Cyberterrorism? For heaven’s sake. The definition of cyberterrorism “is the leveraging of a target’s computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure.” I wouldn’t know how to do that even if I wanted to. Terrorism is a much-abused word these days, and applying it to a satire and commentary blog is a perfect example of its misuse. Telling the truth could only seem like terrorism to people who can’t bear to hear the truth in questions or criticism.
False : “the people . . . from whom she [me, the LOL editor] gets the greatest part of her encouragement” are actually total strangers as well as familiar people around town, not elected officials. LOL has never been supported or encouraged by anyone on the “enemies list.” I doubt that those people are even visiting my blog. And I certainly don’t need anyone’s encouragement. I have never required the backing of supporters or a cheerleading section or flag-waving to speak up and speak out when I see an injustice, maliciousness, or bullying, or an audience when I have something funny to say, which is mostly what LOL has been about. No one will be harmed in the long run, the short run, or any other kind of run, by what gets said on LOL. I feel pretty confident that LOL will not contribute to the end of the world.
False (but an interesting clue) : “it is an outrage that she uses our name in her tirades”: Satire, humor, commentary, yes; tirades, no. And no secret blogger names! Do the youworkforus people think that LOL has outed them? Again, if the youworkforus blog authors are unnamed, how can I have used their names or otherwise outed them? Unless, of course, my theory about one of the authors whose name appeared on LOL in a completely different context is correct. Or maybe “our name” is the royal “our” and the secret blogger is singular and The Queen.
False : “There may be a reason that author could have been given a golden corporate parachute, lost any local businesses attempted, was on local boards for a very, very short time before finally being rejected, and generally is shunned in the community”: Here is the most clearly and explicitly libelous material because all of it can be verifiably and absolutely proven false. 1) I voluntarily resigned from Sun Microsystems in November 2003 without a parachute of any kind. 2) I had a retail business in town in 2005 at the same time I was doing some of the design and writing work that I do now. I did not lose my retail business, whatever that means. How does one “lose” a business that carries only paid-for and consignment inventory, rents space, owns its fixtures and furnishings outright, and has no debts? I closed the retail store to work on my more profitable design and writing business, much to the chagrin of the shop’s loyal customers. This business was in demand then and is even more in demand today (just ask the folks on my waiting list) thanks to word of mouth, referrals, and repeat clients. 3) I served on the Yellowstone Gateway Museum Board and the former Alliance Development Corporation Board, and I voluntarily resigned from each to devote more time to my own projects and other volunteer efforts. Ask members or former members of these boards about the value and integrity of my service, my voluntary resignation, or the fact that both boards asked me to reconsider my resignation. I have been invited to be on at least three boards since that time. 4) Without meaning to be boastful, I have to say that I’ve never been shunned anywhere at any time in this community. With the single exception of the youworkforus blogger, I’m regarded with warmth and respect. I’m regularly and routinely asked to take part in community-based activities of all kinds, and I met the rigorous standards and application process of our Big Brothers Big Sisters organization to become a Big Sister. I even get invited to dinner and parties!
False, but almost funny : “Local people call the blog site ‘Livingston Lying Out Loud’”: Oh, neener, neener, neener on you, LOL! I’ve never heard anything remotely like this said about LOL, and I am sure that such a silly reference would have made its way to me if it were as general as the use of “local people” is meant to suggest. I think that the youworkforus blog just didn’t want to say “the secret group of the youworkforus blog’s author(s) call LOL by this silly name.”
False : “Generally speaking, Livingston community members have stopped looking at the blog site “: I measure traffic to the site using the SiteMeter blog counter, and I display the number of visitors on every page. Sitemeter also tracks where visitors are coming from (town/state/country). Visits have maintained a steady average with no decline among hits coming from Livingston. (In contrast, youworkforus does not avail itself of the numerous free blog counters to display the number of their visitors.) Translate “generally speaking” as “in the youworkforus blogger’s extremely distorted view of things.”
False : “apparently the author, lost in what seems to be her narcissistic belief that she runs this community with a poison pen, and lost in intellectual self-message, continues her path of attempting to harm the lives of others with no accountability—thus far”: This is funnier than any post I might write in the Satire category. Except the veiled threat part–”thus far.” All bloggers who sign their posts experience accountability. The secret author of the tirade against me and LOL misunderstands the Web in general, and the blogosphere in particular. Readers have a million choices for getting and verifying information, and the LOL blog allows anyone to comment (unlike youworkforus, which requires a Blogger membership) and does not censor comments except for those obviously generated by spamming software. On another of my blogs, artsmontana.com, I even published a completely inaccurate comment that reads very much like the youworkforus post, even though it was more than a tad wacky and not at all germane to the site. Readers enforce accountability. Putting your name on your posts, or at least somewhere on the blog itself, enforces accountability. Oh, and then there is my own silly penchant for the facts. I might wax satirical, but I always check facts whether I use them as a starting point for satire or use them in opinion/commentary. How different LOL is from the youworkforus blog in this regard. Finally, I have always made it clear when an item is satire or opinion/commentary.
And that bit about running the community with a poison pen all the while being lost in intellectual self-message? Well, that’s just plain funny.
The youworkforus blog is at http://youworkforus.blogspot.com/. Since its inception in August 2007, the youworkforus blog has only 9 posts: 8 in August 2007, and one in February (described above). It’s wicked strange that youworkforus would decide to devote their only post in nearly seven months to a diatribe against a blog that has never offered an opinion about youworkforus or the East Side School.Although Blogger identifies the blog as youworkforus.com on the otherwise empty profile (illustrated above), youworkforus.com appears to be a parked domain that is owned (but not used) by someone in Holliston, Massachusetts. Blogger is a blog hosting platform and hosting service provider. By contrast, LOL is a registered domain, hosted on my own purchased server space, and the blogging platform is WordPress. People can use Blogger without registering a domain name if they don’t mind having blogspot.com in their URLs. In other words, youworkforus.com does not appear to be related to youworkforus.blogspot.com.
I have no idea who “mediamogul” is, but he or she left a comment on youworkforus since I wrote this post. He she/offered his/her take on the secret blogger. Unfortunately, mediamogul is also anonymous, has no profile, and a link to what is a private blog. He/she remains a mystery, too.
Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style debate
April 26, 2008 | Filed Under Election 2008, Opinion and Commentary | Leave a Comment
Hillary Clinton has challenged Barack Obama to a debate, and she has most recently suggested a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Mercifully, Obama has declined, saying that with 21 debates over the past year, his time would be better spent meeting voters personally, on the ground. I agree. For one thing, we don’t have decent moderators for a real debate, and even though a Lincoln-Douglas style debate would not be moderated, it would still yield what the media, the GOP campaign, and the Clinton campaign (currently synonomous with the GOP campaign) like the most–an opportunity to sift through the audio and the text looking for keywords or phrases that they could distort.
In such a debate, Clinton would have to be Douglas since she possesses none of the qualities of Abraham Lincoln. None. Zero. Unless she has a stovepipe hat somewhere, or a beard. Her values and Lincoln’s could not be farther apart.
“We need a president, especially after the last seven years of George Bush, who doesn’t just make speeches about American values but understands them and lives them and believes them and wants to make sure that they are available for everybody.” – HRC
“just make speeches” indeed. You’d have to be an idiot or as dead as Stephen A. Douglas to have not absorbed the fact that Senator Obama has done and continues to do a mountain more than make speeches, whereas Mrs. Clinton is adroit at engaging in molehill politics. Obama lives his beliefs, which makes him infinitely preferable to someone who changes their beliefs to suit the political climate or win a Senate seat (and for that she also changed where she lived so she could run in New York), or run for President, or cover up a hubby’s sexual indiscretions. He also has more experience in legislative life than Hillary Clinton, so she must think that state legislatures are not as important as managing White House legal defense teams in scandal after scandal or she wouldn’t denigrate his experience.
“American values” : This is the woman who beers it up with the working class after having said to her husband about working class Arkansas voters who did not support him, “Screw them, Bill.” Apart from being elitist, this remark strikes me as dangerous when spoken to a man whose infidelities would suggest that he had probably already done just that.
This is also the woman who has taken Richard Mellon Scaife into her political bed even though Scaife has in the past spent millions of his vast inherited fortune trying to destroy the Democratic Party in general and her husband in particular, and who will no doubt go back to spending millions destroying the party once the Republican convenience of supporting Hillary expires. Can you say “pact with the devil?” Clearly she makes pacts with the devil all of the time or she would have left Bill a long time ago.
This is the woman who loved MoveOn.org when it formed to save her husband from impeachment and when it galvanized the progressive electorate even while the Dems slept at the wheel and took spinelessness and unsteadfastness to new highs. (Or is it lows?) She remains loyal to no one if they might put a bump in her road to the White House, a road that she is so determined is hers and hers alone, that much of the public now believes she is capable of destroying Obama so that she can run again in 2012 if she fails this time around.
To whom has she been loyal over a long period of time (besides Bill)? Mark Penn. Although she fired him for his promotion of the Colombia Free Trade Deal, she has kept him on the campaign as a pollster. Had she really valued the American worker, not to mention integrity in her associations, she would have completely canned Penn for his associations with Cintas, a company that hired Penn’s firm to help them with their campaign to deny workers the right to join a union, or for his firm’s representation of Blackwater, the private security company infamous for its aggression against Iraqi civilians. The only American value in play here seems to be “Stand By Your Man,” even the one who is terribly wrong and terribly corrupt. (Penn’s associations, well beyond the Colombia connection, seem to me to be far more newsworthy than Reverend Wright’s rhetorical flourishes. But Penn is white, and his truly foul bedmates don’t make for good video, so we find the media once again emphasizing the wrong things.)
It seems doubtful to me that she understands American values and lives them, unless, of course, we continue to toss aside the classic ones and count the ones that dominate today–corruption, greed, overweening ambition, self-absorption, hypocrisy, lying, distorting, smearing, racist hints, sound biting, swiftboating, and wearing really expensive pantsuits.
The comparisons of Obama to Lincoln are both legitimate and pervasive. No one has compared Hillary Clinton to a great political, or any other, figure. (Although I do like Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Thomas Suddes’ dubbing her the “Evita of the Ozarks.”) Lincoln was the one who said “with malice toward none.” Lincoln was the one who stood by his introduction and promotion of the Emancipation Proclamation even though he well knew that it might be political suicide. Lincoln was the one who won the nomination. Douglas was the one who lost the nomination. Go away Mrs. Clinton.
Dear Hillary, There is no Day One
March 5, 2008 | Filed Under Election 2008, Opinion and Commentary | Leave a Comment
This article appears on the The Huffington Post. Sometime in the mid-1990s I recall saying that if Hillary Clinton ever ran for president, I’d quit my job and go to work on her campaign. Over the years I changed my mind. By the time she did announce her candidacy for president I was saying, “If she is elected, I might have to leave the country.” But, during this long election season, at the dozenth or so debate point, I began to feel that I had perhaps been rash. The woman did seem to have experience, smarts, toughness, and Washington savvy. Sometimes she even made some of the men in the initial field look like amateurs. Now she just makes everyone else look incredibly decent, ethical, and fair.
This is typical of the roller coaster ride that is the Clinton’s story. I had such hopes for both of them on January 20, 1993. Which brings us to why there is no Day One and can never be a Day One for Hillary. If she were elected, January 20, 2009 would actually be Day 5845 for her, that is, if we count the days since Bill Clinton was sworn in as 42nd president and his two-for-one presidency began. Since she is leveraging their joint White House legacy in the current campaign, and if all that experience is supposed to count, it seems fair to look at things that way.
Yesterday, or Day 5523, I decided I was done with giving Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt. This is so clearly Barack Obama’s moment that I wish that the Democratic Party apparatus that she and Bill are no doubt cajoling, bribing, threatening, and blackmailing at this very moment would tell her to get lost. The Red Phone ad, and the deliberate hesitancy in asserting the non-issue of Obama’s religion – not to mention her failure to bring up her experience of attending Congressional members’ Christian prayer breakfasts with him when she was asked about the Muslim rumor – eroded any fragile hope I had of her rising above the petty and the political.
To me her answer, as so much of what she says, is leveraged as an opportunity, in this case to give the speculation oxygen rather than to cut it off.
In the answer below, substitute “I know he is a Christian” for “as far as I know” and you’ll see what I mean about opportunism. “KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim? HILLARY: No. No. Why would I? There’s no … No. There’s nothing to base that on - as far as I know.”
The negative campaigning leading up to her desperate bid for Ohio and Texas was the final straw. I have little doubt that the Hillary I am seeing now is part of a longtime pattern. Those days since January 1993 have been a terrible mix of political missteps, centrist compromises, expediency, psychodrama, a failure to both live up to the youthful Clinton ideals and to understand how to achieve them in Washington, and amoral ambition. I’ll grant that there were enough successes to make me love Bill Clinton in spite of his compromises and his enormous personal shortcomings. Given his successor in the White House, it was enough to make one weep with longing every time that Bill spoke. Oh, to have a president with a brain again!
And then Bill hit the campaign trail for Hillary, behaving in a way that made it impossible to forget the man who had betrayed the best hopes of his wife, his daughter, his friend Al Gore, his party, and his country for the sake of a few minutes of bizarre sexual gratification. It wasn’t about the sex; it was the puerile bid for attention, the enormity of his self-indulgence, and his lack of character that came to mind again and again every time the man campaigned for his wife.
When we look at the Days, there is a long and sad and dirty trail of history that makes the Day One slogan both appalling and ridiculous. It would have been compelling and stirring if this indeed were Hillary’s moment, but the dual Clinton story has doomed her to tragedy that would be Shakespearean if it were not so cheesy. It’s time to get her off the stage, or let her act out her part as a Senator. I want no more of the Clinton maneuvering, politicking, cunning, blundering, and alternating meanness and expediently misty-eyed authenticity in my White House.
Finally, the thought of Bill Clinton in the White House again, butting in, eating donuts, wandering the halls, and goodness knows what else, takes away my appetite. I have every confidence that he would screw things up for both of them again (although she seems quite able to do that on her own). And then we’d have only a four year Democratic run, hampered by unceasing Clinton static, 
and followed by another Republican regime. The question is not just one of whether she is electable. Would she be re-electable? As for that morally repugnant ad, I have the feeling that when the red phone rang at 3:00 AM, it’d be Bill who grabbed the receiver. Imagine Hillary gripping his wrist in mid-air and screaming, “It’s my turn, goddammit!” And I doubt very much that our children would be safer with Hillary in the White House with Bill in tow. Certainly not if your child happens to be a White House intern.
See an excellent Michael Seitzman piece (posted on the Huffington Post) on how Hillary would behave on Day Two.
UPDATE, May 10: See also, with thanks to Donna G for pointing this out to me, see Camille Paglia’s salon.com pieces on Hillary. Very interesting.