That's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "What Passes For Progress" and I love it and bless Isaiah for doing a comic on a real issue at a time when so many on the left have yet again sprang a leak in their brain.
Let's start with sexism. If you're new hear, I'm a woman, I'm a lesbian and I'm Black. I know about discrimination and don't need some White boy to try to educate me about the obstacles I face due to race, sexual orientation and gender. I find it very interesting that Corrente allows sexism:
Given a body politic which is apparently barely able to do more than drool at pixtures of pritty lady, Caribou Barbie could have walked away from it all, but she jumped in with both feet, rode the gravy train, and like a leaky pipeline, spoiled the environment while collecting huge wads of cash.
And if you think that maybe no one saw the sexism, here's Lambert's comment:
... a miss, that would have been helpful.
I don't follow Palin, or as some prefer to call her, "Sarah." But judged on outcomes, she's a very skilled politician. There are surely better and more effective ways of opposing her than with sexist language, of which anyone sentient here surely had a bellyful in 2008.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
If the sexism had been racism, do you really think Lambert would have let it stay? Of course not. But sexism is okay. That says a great deal about Corrente and none of it good. The White Corrente better never try mounting the high horse -- as good White liberals -- on racism when they allow sexism to run rampant, when they even have their chief moderator comment on it. Their chief moderator who spent the weekend deleting everyone's opinion he disagreed with. Sidebar: Do you know how many women have stopped political blogging since 2008? Do you know how many will tell you in an e-mail that one of the people who was the worst to them was Lambert? A huge, huge number.
In fairness, I should note that I agree with Vast Left's take. So it's not all of Corrente. But there's a wealth of dumb there.
Like DC Blogger. Quoting someone about a "posse" and titling your post something like "Torches and Pitchforks"? When you've done that, you got a lot of nerve calling out anyone's language, DC Blogger -- who is basically the Thomas Friedman of Corrente. White Gal DC Blogger wants to write about race. Or pretend she is. They're a hunger strike in an Ohio prison. You want to show boat, White Gal, write about that. Here's what Idiot DC Blogger writes in her opening paragraph, "Take a look at the photos in this great post by Digby. Now ask yourself how our precious media would be reacting if these fellows were Mexican, Arab, or heaven forfend, black." Great post by Digby?
You're making me laugh Suck Ass DC. But I click and what do I find?
I have no idea on the photos because Digby can't communicate clearly what they are. (For critiques of Digby and her nonsense, check out the archives at The Daily Howler. Or check out her own archives in 2008 when the 'brave' woman couldn't call out sexism. Her readers might not like her, she explained in a Media Matters-related book.) Digs opens hers post with this paragraph:I see that Senator Rand Paul has weighed in and declared that Jared Loughner was mentally ill (which, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't take a medical degree to see.)But he also seems to think this means that the fact that he assassinated a Democratic congresswoman is irrelevant -- even though it was a political assassination by a disturbed young man which happened in an atmosphere of violent threats against Democratic politicians. You can call that a coincidence if you want, but it would be stupid.
Stupid? Stupid is Digby. This is not a great post so stupid is DC Blogger. This hideous post, that hideous paragraph had me going online while thinking, "I just heard on NPR that Gabrielle Giffords was in critical condition!" She is. She's in critical condition.
". . . this means that the fact that he assassinated a Democratic congresswoman is irrelevent -- even though it was a poltiical assassination by a disturbed . . ." What an idiot. Gabrielle Giffords will hopefully, like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and others, survive the assassination attempt. She has not been assassinated. Reagan was not assassinated, JFK was. There was an attempted assassination on Reagan. Is that clear, can we not follow that?
Repeating, hopefully Gabrielle Giffords will survive the attempt and currently no assassination has taken place.
"Great post by Digby!" gushes DC Blogger -- about a post that implies Giffords has died. And Digby can't even use the woman's name! As Ava and C.I. wrote Sunday in "The Hysteria Beat (Ava and C.I.):"
Strange because information would include names. We've already named Gabrielle Giffords. Despite using 1186 words -- and, in fact, using her family's tragedy, Newberry can't be bothered with informing readers of her first name and, no, she was not on the same recognition level of national fame as the Director of Homeland Security or a Republican vice presidential candidate before the attack yesterday.
Digby can't even mention the woman's last name. She leaves Gabrielle Giffords unnamed while climbing on the cross and pretending to care about the woman. She leaves Gabrielle Giffords unnamed in her bad post that -- if you know the English language -- (wrongly) says Giffords has died. (An assassination means the victim died; an assassination attempt means the victim survived.) And this is what DC Blogger thinks is a great post?
And now we're back to Lambert who thinks he can offer corrections without noting them. Point of fact, I quote someone, it better be what they said. It's not my job to clean up their words -- written or spoken. Here's Lambykins:
This is a monster post, and my hat is off to Riverdaughter (RD) for courage, perceptiveness, intelligence -- and strategic thinking -- in posting it.* Quoting in relevant part:
There seem to be two major camps regarding this tragedy: Sarah Palin is a monster and the Tea Partiers must be blamed. Or, Sarah Palin is the scapegoat and her picture had nothing to do with this tragic incident.
Riverdaughter typed: "There seem to be tow major camps regarding this tragedy: Sarah Palin is a monster and the Tea Partiers must be blamed. Or, Sarah Palin is the scapegoat and her picture had nothing to do with this tragic incident." If you're going to quote her, you can put "two" in brakets:
Or you can note that she spelled the word wrong by doing this:
But don't pretend you're quoting her if you're fixing her language.
As for the "two camps" argument? Riverdaughter's an idiot and will forever be one. Molly Ivins long ago shot down the idiotic "two camps" b.s. when people were all into neo-liberal nonsense (early 90s) and pointed out that anyone who says there are "two camps" is an idiot. There are always more than two camps. (Riverdaughter feels she's in a third camp -- no, she's caught between the two like the moderate hawk-leaning Dem she is.) And the vast majority of Americans? If the past is prologue, the vast majority is waiting for facts. Gasbags don't need facts.
Riverdaughter opens with:
I should have written a post about this earlier because I really don’t like the meme “politicizing a tragedy” and you won’t hear me using it. The reason you won’t hear me using it is because words like “politicizing” are cooked up by operatives at the speed of light and are used to short circuit the thought process. They provide a sort of cheap grace as a substitute for thinking the problem out. Same for words like corporatist and triangulate. But that subject deserves it’s own post and is not the subject of this one
You should have? Why not, you only write the most simplistic posts on the most simplistic topics. You're one of the most uninformed bloggers there is. One example, your praise for Jim Webb which ignored his pattern of racism that was long documented on the left. Your praise for him and 'golly, he'd make a good candidate for president' despite the fact that Vietnam veterans suffering from the damages of Agent Orange are fully aware he stabbed them in the back as he went to war with the VA Secretary over whether or not they could get their benefits.
Riverdaughter never knows a damn thing. That's so sad because I often agree with some of her opinions. But that site -- with the exception if myiqis2x (or whatever his name is) -- is so free of thought and free of facts that it's as though a 3rd grader was blogging. They make so many basic mistakes over and over and over. And never correct them.
"Politicizing" is not "cooked up by operatives" on the right. A lot of us are seeing people, over and over, use an event to push their hot topic. No one knows why the Congress woman was targeted. People with their own set of beliefs aren't waiting for facts, they're rushing in to make political hay out of a tragedy. That is politicizing.
9-11 was a tragedy that the Bush administration quickly politicized. Don't tell me that "politicized" was cooked up by the right wing. What a stupid, uninformed idiot Riverdaughter is.
Here's Wikipedia on politicized:
A politicized issue is a social, economic, theological, spiritual, scientific or legal issue which has become a political issue, as a result of deliberate action or otherwise, whereby people become politically active over that issue.
A contemporary example is abortion, an emotive and moral issue which has become a highly contentious legal and political issue in many countries. Terminology relating to such issues often takes the form of loaded language which contrasts with the pejorative terms used in reference to opponents. For example, those who think that abortion should be a legal medical option describe their views as pro-choice, and may label their opponents as "woman haters". Similarly, those opposed to legalized abortion describe their views as pro-life, and may label their opponents as "baby-killers" or "murderers".
Heavily politicized issues are often called "hot button issues" because almost any position taken is sure to please one group of people and offend another. Politically active people and organizations will often employ a 'litmus test' to evaluate a candidate. For example, a candidate for political office who shares the same view on abortion as a political organization may receive their endorsement regardless of the candidate's views on other subjects.
Sometimes the term "politicized" itself becomes a negative label. A group holding one opinion on an issue will sometimes accuse their opposition of "politicizing the issue". The implication is that they are honestly dealing with the issue on the merits while the opposition is bringing the issue up purely for political gain.
Public choice economics teaches that any issue where any group has a substantial financial stake is likely to be politicized.
Other politicized issues include global warming, curing autism, separation of church and state, same-sex marriage, elimination of poverty, war, gun control, welfare, capital punishment, and embryonic stem cell research.
Party politicisation is a process whereby the environment ascends the political agenda to become electorally salient and the subject of party competition 
Merriam-Webster tells you that its first known use was in 1846. But Riverdaughter wouldn't know anything about that because those are facts.
I'm sorry for all who were hurt and killed Saturday (where ever they were). I think we live in a very violent society as evidenced by the ongoing wars and Barack Obama's claim that he can kill an American citizen on his own say so without a trial or anything. How much this impacted someone, I have no idea and will have to wait and see what's presented in court. (I will again state that I hope and I pray that Gabrielle Giffords survives -- and add that's true of anyone injured on Saturday.)
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"