What the hell is happening to this so called proegressive Blogosphere?
DailyKos and MyDD are front paging and praising The Club for Growth and Senator Coburn for their symbolic gesture and feigned attempt at being human. Then wacking NARAL longtime allies of the Democratic party.
MyDD and Kos’s rhetoric about special interests groups sound like it was written by Arnold’s “special election” propogandist… mutterings about special interest groups and entrenched “old school” players. They are under the spell of Simon Rosenberg and his NDN “Do Not Think” Tank… tell me… what good can come from and organization fathered from the loins of Lieberman and Breaux… except… a bastard child that terrorizes the Democratic Party.
Like I said I had high hopes for 2006 but this is beginning to turn into another Nightmare with DLC/NDN:Part 13. This is not a rant… I am too tired of fighting these fools… but when we lose ONCE AGAIN in 2006 the blame should be laid squarely on their shoulders on those promoting this DLC/NDN bullshit. This lie about having to run to the right inorder to win … when it has been proven over and over again that IT DOES NOT WORK. Now the new line of attacking the base is that the party needs to believe in nothing (non ideological issue-less) inorder to win… this is going beyond stupidity… this is out right cretinous… they are making cyanide laced kool-aid for a mass suicide.
Banning is a sign of weakness… what did I do? I pointed out that MyDD had elevated a diary about the republican Massa to the recommend list eventhough another diary had more reccomends… (the comment you see after that is false… Jerome was not one of the two reccomends when I pointed this out).
Why is this on Booman… it is a telltale sign about the blogosphere in general and it’s coming demise with people like Simon Rosenberg trying to force it into his “business plan” to sell to corporate lobbyists.
Simon Rosenberg and the DLC/NDN couldn’t give a shit about the Democratic party… they started out as “business” selling favors from Democratic policitians to “Corporate SPECIAL INTEREST” groups, which is why the DLC and the NDN have been funded by right wing fascist like Koch Industries… somewhere along the way they realized that it was easier to just “create” their own politicians loyal to their corporate special interest groups. The fly in the oinment however, was that the Democratic party had its own so called special interest groups borne from the struggles of the civil rights movement, labor unrest and the women’s revolution… just to name a few.
These “old school” special interests groups have conflicting values with the “new school” corporate special interests groups that the DLC/NDN represent. Therefore they have set out on a task since the eighties to dismantle and distroy the base of the Democratic party in order to clear the decks for their “new friends”…like the Club for Growth etc.
This is why the Democrats have LOST EVERYTHING because we let in this DLC/NDN cancer which has burrowed deep into the party and is killing off viable activism and support for traditional Democratic values. Rolling over on the party principles to be in accordance with the DLC/NDN corporate special interest groups has pulled the blanket of protection off of the “old school” special interests… who no longer feel part of the Democratic party... and naturally so. Why the hell would women champion anti-choice wingnut just because he has a miniscule “d” behind their name after years of struggle and women dying to get the right to control their own bodies. The BIG LIE that Kos and others proport is that somehow magically voting to Republican Democrats will in the future protect women’s rights… I guess he thinks that all women fell off of the turnip truck yesterday… hey Kos I got a bridge in Alaska I’d like to sell…
It is not a coincidence the Simon Rosenberg is flooding the netroots with his 200 million dollars “Do Not Think” Tank… It is no surprise that the wife (Mary Maitlin) of the DLC biggest shill Carville (Democracy Corp) may be indicted along with her boss Karl Rove… it is no surprise that this administration as incompetent as it is, has surrived this long is due to complicity and aid from those high up in the Democratic Party.
Out of all of the bloggers I had the most respect for Jerome now he is just a petty pawn of the NDN… my only regret is I didn’t get my 100 bucks back I tossed in to help him buy a new server.
Banning? I thought KOS and MYDD proposed a big tent. I guess not big enough for dissent.
Well I think it is clear that their ideas (well.. that of the DLC/NDN) of a big tent is shutting up the “old school” special interest in favor of the “New school” wingnut fanticals and corporatist special interests… JUST LIKE THE GOP.
One way to have a tent that looks big is to have not a lot of people inside the tent.
My guess is that there are many pawns on all the blogs, busy skewing attention, diverting and undermining information. Even here I read with much caution and stay away from the non-political diaries as they serve to divert, entertain and group bloggers in odd ways.
But then again I don’t trust much of anything these days.
I am all for new media and netrootz activism… and when I see it I praise it …but bought and paid DLC/NDN bullshit has destroyed whatever chance there was of a real movement.
I can’t believe these are the same guy that did “There Is No Crises” to now shilling for Club for Growth… that is some scary shit.
I’m very sorry you have been banned from MyDD, Parker.
I have been looking into these charges you keep making about the NDN, and your constant conflation of the NDN with the DLC. So far, I have not found anything to back up your suspicions, even though you have succeeded in making me wary of what is going on.
I’ve talked to Duncan, Chris Bowers and a representative of the Democracy Alliance. I have not been offered any money, but I have been inquiring about what, if anything, is going to be expected in return for funding. And so far, everyone I’ve talked to has agreed that there should not be, and there will not be, any editorial control, or any promotional obligations attached to funding. That leaves only their decision making about who to give to in the first place.
I can tell you this: if they offer me money with no strings attached I will be hard pressed to find a reason to turn them down. Unless I see an unsavory pattern of who is NOT getting support, I do not see anything nefarious about what they are trying to do.
I’m still waiting for someone to make this NDN/DLC case with anything other than innuendo.
hey boo, I have nothing to offer about NDN except for caution in general about funding with no strings attached…
being from the ad world, I would just warn about how corps “get you”… you know all this of course, it just always bears repeating.
First they place an ad or give you a grant with no editorial control. you get used to the cash flow. you need the cash flow to keep going. then you post an article they don’t like as your contract comes up for renewal. they mention that this was not really their cup of tea… they say that due to budget restructuring they will be renewing monthly moving forward… so the seed is planted that they could pull their funding at any moment and that they werent really too happy with your last couple of pieces on election fraud or the DLC, etc. nothing overt, but it is understood nonetheless.
anyhoo, don’t think for a moment that would happen with you, you’re too much of a bulldog on the truth, but I felt it should be said anyway.
cheers,
spider
Hardly a new tactic, and one that has poisoned the print world from time immemorial. Taking ads is like selling your soul by inches. Advertisers control the purse strings and the power. This is why “The Nation” chose to print their magazine on newsprint. They only accept ads from advertisers who don’t try to control their content, and that limits the cash flow considerably. This is also why Ms. went to a two color process and cheaper paper. They eliminated ads all together, and decided to be subscription supported. The article by Steinem in the first edition of ad-free Ms. is one of the best explanations of how the process of advertiser manipulation works, ever written. That this would ultimately poison internet publishing the same way, is not a great surprise.
PRECISELY.
Which is why when way way way back at Kos he asked (what a scam) for feedback on taking ads… I posted, ”yes of course take them… Its your blog”. But I added, ”be aware it changes everything”.
An online friend wrote me that I was being too pure and bothered to explain monetary realities.
What a waste of her time. I was talking REALITY not purity.
LOL and I was right. Not that it matters, it required no “brilliance” on my part to know that ads, ad money changes everything…. I leave “brilliance” to the Democrats in their electoral endeavors. everyone says they are so brilliant.
Consumer Reports takes no outside advertising. In addition, they buy the goods they review on the market, without identifying themselves.
Given what they do, would they have any credibility otherwise?
They don’t think so, and I am certainly glad they manage it. Obviously most publications do take advertising. And obviously it is often a problem – women’s magazines are plainly bought and paid for.
But, on the other hand, we all get money from somewhere – a boss, clients, parents, the government. There has to be ways to accept money without selling yourself.
This is kinda a dodge, isn’t it, expecting some kind of “smoking memo” proof that the two organizations are connected?
Conspiracies of shared backgrounds and goals might not be explicit “conspiracies”, but the effect is the same.
please provide examples and sources for your bullet points. I’m open minded on this. I’ve been asking for someone to do this research for me for months, and I never get anything more than allegations.
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html
The DLC’s effort to win Meeks’s vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC’s monthly magazine, Washington’s most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO’s support, “business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote.”
Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, “We’re trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way,” he adds, “they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win.”
of which Simon speaks, the ones which make it “difficult to win, frankly” is the issue of women’s rights.
Many of us fear even Governor Dean, a physician who truly believes in a woman’s right to choose her health care, will be taken in by the rhetoric.
We hope not, maybe he won’t. One is not exactly sure which issues Simon was referring to, but we know the party had not been standing up for unions, minorities, or women.
What Simon Rosenberg is really speaking of when he says “difficult to win, frankly” is that is it difficult for him to win lobbying contracts.
Oh my… I wrote this months ago… damn I am good.
For donors, NDN provides precertification that none of the politicians are noisy populists. “The candidates are validated to people in the room as New Democrats,” says Rosenberg.
To ensure that liberals don’t slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, “Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?” Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support.
This is why I think that the Blogs should have some kind of FEC regulations!!!! And I guess why Kos is threatening anyone in his path to avoid it.
If I wanted to be outfoxed…I’d watch Fow news not read MYDD and DK.
– The Nation – Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt:
NDN’s wingnut friends
KOCH INDUSTRIES INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KOCHPAC)
read it a weep… nice company that Simon Rosenberg keeps… check out their major donors
* REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FUND
I totally agree with you about Koch! They are the biggest of the crooks out there. and republican to boot!
I agree with BooMan. Please provide supporting evidence for your bullet points.
I met with a couple of NDN reps as part of an informal grassroots group several months back. From what I already knew and from how that meeting went I decided they weren’t really the direction I wanted to go but… my understanding is
Perhaps I just haven’t been paying close enough attention but my previous impression had been that they simply were centrist yuppies and not old fart progressive activists like most of us are.
Being a centrist yuppie ain’t a crime. It’s not that impressive but it ain’t a crime. Bieng DLC wouldn’t be a crime either if it wasn’t that it also means actively and openly trying to do everything in your power to marginalize and politically crush the liberal/progressive 20% of the American electorate.
never said that it was a crime.
I provided a link above, and Parker has supplied more on the financial backing. I’m at work so my bookmarks and whatnot are at home and my time to google/link is limited.
As for the attacks, see the centrist posts and the bullying on lefty threads at dailyKos and to a lesser extent mydd, the most notorious being kos’ attacks on “hippies”/peace activists and the “women’s studies crowd.” I’m at work, and the filter here blocks dkos. Is it as loud and ongoing as the DLC attacks? No, not yet.
Ok… that’s Kos and to a lesser extent Jerome. That is not necessarily NDN. I can point directly to statements of From and Reed and others at the DLC to point out what destructive assholes they are. You are quoting Kos and saying it is NDN. This fails the logic path. Again, I am open to new information that shows that NDN is what you say but this isn’t it and I haven’t seen anything else yet that is.
I too am at work so I’ll review this thread, and any links contained, later to when I have more time to see if there is any convincing evidence. Thanks.
Peace,
Andrew
Is there a reason you are not reading my posts to your request for more information?
As I said, I’m at work and at least have to pretend to be working part of the time.
In the meantime… I did reply to one of your posts. Please see that and my reply to madman below.
Peace,
Andrew
see Parker’s comment.
I won’t be home until 9 pm or so, 6 and a half hours from now (class after work). By then I’ll be past braindead.
Admittedly, while Parker’s links are really good, I’m sure one could say they are not direct proof. One could also say the same thing about many things that Bush and his supporters do. We could play this “that proof isn’t convincing enough” thing forever. Some of us see connections, you may not.
Best I can do.
Valid point. As I tried to make clear in my response to another of Parker’s posts… the issue appears to be partially what it is each of us finds objectionable.
NDN has a so-called “centrist” agenda and a corporate influence. I support neither of those. But I’ve also seen some good work out of them during the last campaign.
The DLC has made it very clear they consider liberals like me to be the enemy and are doing everything in their power to crush me/us. If they get new leadership and disavow that approach and instead simply promote a “centrist” corporate agenda then I will likewise switch from considering them the enemey to considering them a group that I do not agree with.
As it is, I’ve no reason to join with NDN but the DLC is the enemey, a clear and present danger.
As far as I can tell you guys are objecting mostly to the corporate influence on both these two groups. Ok, I object to corporate influence anywhere in politics. I’m with you that far. But I’ve yet to see anything out of NDN or Rosenberg that indicates they consider me the enemey or are trying to crush me. Quite the contrary actually. I’m fairly certain that they would jump at the chance to build a working relationship with me and my group. They have already shown interest in just such a thing. The DLC wants people like me crushed under their bootheels. Two very different things.
So… yes, proof is there that they are centrist and corporate.
No, proof is not there that they are the DLC. It is my intention to do to the DLC leadership exactly what they are trying to do to me. Crush them under my bootheel and make them completely and totally politically irrelavant and marginalized.
NDN I may work in coalition with if we can find common ground. It remains to be seen.
But I’ve also seen some good work out of them during the last campaign.
Look, not to be argumentative, but can you support this from direct experience? With some links and data that supports they walked the walk in ’04??
Because there ARE troubling indications (reports from individuals that have attneded NDN/Kos/trippi/Rosenberg panels and day seminars this past summer/fall) that are very disturbing.
More and more they sound like yet another consultant “game”, something the Democratic party is heavily larded already.
Their game is to promise (and I mean HEAVILY promise with some flagrant language) the net roots fundraising to candidates and consulting for the way into the net roots.
I wonder if you caught the show that Jerome put on in the Hackett thread at DKos yesterday. Very revealing.
The online netroots consultants are looking very unprofessional… or like very very lame Chris Lahane wannabes….
Not good.
Marisacat! How ya doin’?
I’ve stayed out of the Hackett/Brown thing for the most part. So I missed whatever Jerome said. I know he is working for Brown though. I frankly, don’t do as much reading and participating over at Dkos as I used to so it is quite possible I am missing something.
I was thinking of the advertising work NDN was doing in Florida in ’04 (perhaps saying “I’ve seen” was not quite correct – I saw the ads but I took other peoples word for it on the results) which had very favorable reviews from several people (people other than Jerome or Markos) who’s opinions I respect. I have not attended any of their seminars. Two of their reps were invited to present over lunch to a group of varied grassroots folks that met outside of Washington several months back. Like I said earlier, I wasn’t all that impressed. They seemed sincere enough about what they were selling but it did seem like a cross between consultant class stuff and yuppie network building. We all said thank you very much. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
If Rosenberg and NDN are trying to buy the blogosphere and thereby buy the netroots as seems to be being implied here, then I am very much against that. I also think it is doomed to failure. If Markos and Jerome get bought then we’ll all just move elsewhere… as has seemed to be a trend already.
At the same time though I can’t fault Rosenberg for trying to get in on a good thing. Makes sense and I would do it too. And if I thought there was an effective niche to be filled between candidates and netroots (which I do) then it would only make sense to try and fill it if I felt I was in the right position to do so.
Listen, I don’t have any great need for NDN but Parker is insisting that they are the same as the DLC and I’ve yet to see anything remotely close to that out of them. The DLC doesn’t want to promise the netroots to candidates… they want to dig a 12 foot hole and bury the netroots in it and keep the candidates completely for themselves. They hate us because they can’t control us. Rosenberg may well be trying to play a game and gain a piece of the netroots pie but that is a far cry from actively trying to bury us.
Peace,
Andrew
Kos and Jerome have coined a new term for Hackett supporters on DKos:
“Hackett Fedayeen”.
The term “fedayeen” is an insult I shall not forgive nor forget. Surely it cannot have escaped the blogworld’s answer to Martin and Lewis that Hackett faced fedayeen who were trying to kill him, and who have killed, US soldiers and Marines in Iraq.
A fedayeen sniper nearly shredded my right arm in Gulf War I. To be called a fedayeen…well, my jaw clenched in anger, and it did not unclench for a long, long time.
This, I do not forget.
This, I do not forgive.
That’s not cool. I can understand completely why that would be upsetting. If they have done that then they are out of line… even if it was in response to someone else being out of line to them first.
From what I know of both Hackett and Brown they are both fine candidates and I hope the best man wins. I would hope that we netroots folks could disagree on these two candidates civilly. If not, then it is a bad sign for all of us. There are going to be plenty of elections where we are going to be supporting different candidates. The next Presidential primary will certainly fall into this category. Jerome and Markos need to be able to handle us disagreeing with them and we need to be able to accept them picking candidates and working for them.
Without stuff like “fedayeen.” That is over the line.
Jerome works for Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner. Therefore I take that into consideration when I read his writing. It is highly likely to be slanted.
You are quoting Kos and saying it is NDN. This fails the logic path.
I probably don’t know all of the history. The following seems pretty straightforward, though:
NPI’s founding team includes Sergio Bendixen, Jamie Daves, Gina Glantz, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Mark Penn, Cecile Richards, Simon Rosenberg, Joe Trippi and Theo Yedinsky.
More on NPI can be found at http://www.ndnpac.org.
Personally, I do the same as you: this is a consideration when I read something that Kos writes. Further, as an NPI goal is internet outreach, I do equate what he writes as part of their agenda.
How does this fail the logic path?
oh, and the pushing of pro-war, anti-woman candidates as somehow being centrist, rather than rightwing, is dishonest.
1. NDN was formed by Lieberman, Breaux and Rosenberg.
Saying “a thing is a thing” is not a sufficient proof for a previous statement of saying “a thing is a thing.”
I get it that you don’t like corporate influence. Me neither. I get it that you don’t like centrists. Me neither… though maybe not to the same degree as you.
What I don’t get is how you claim that NDN = DLC. You’ve yet to show me one place where Rosenberg has spouted off in the same manner as From and Reed. You’ve yet to show one place in which Rosenberg has attempted to undercut liberal candidates or marginalize the progressve wing of the party in anyway other then deciding that they would support candidates that adhered to their own creed. Ummm… last time I checked we do the same in reverse.
It’s ok to be a centrist. It’s ok to be a republican. It’s ok to be a conservative. It’s ok for people to hold differing political viewpoints and it’s ok for people to work to promote those different viewpoints.
What is not ok is the criminal nature of the current Republican leadership.
What is not ok is the fact that the DLC leaderships sole focus appears to be to crush liberals. That’s no more ok then Ann Coulter calling us traitors.
What I will agree with you (partially) on is that it is not ok for corporations and other big money entities to have the type of influence over government that they do. It is the law that is screwed up in this case as it is allowed by current US law. Corporations are not citizens and shouldn’t be treated as citizens. More money does not equal more voice. Unfortunately congress and the courts have ruled otherwise. I disagree… strongly.
But so far NDN simply looks like a pac with a different political agenda then me.
listen I sadly have to sign off for today.
I am not going to repeat all of my comments here because if you read them they do answer your questions.
Sorry Parker. But as I stated. They do not. They support your pre-disposed view but they do not support your contention that NDN is no different from the DLC… for more on that please see my reponse to madman below as to how you and I are looking at this from two partially different angles… and why I think that is where our disagreement on this comes from.
Parker (and others),
Anyhow… I respect your right to your opinion. You may well be right. It would not be the first time someone see’s something long before I see it. I’ll keep your point of view in mind (and those of others expressed here) and keep on an eye on Rosenberg and NDN as they intersect with my own life and political actions. I am a lefty and a populist and I am inclined to support Hackett simply because he represents one of the finer moments of the netroots and local activist cause which is something I strongly, strongly, strongly, STRONGLY support. But I get tired of us always shooting at each other and even at folks that we might not agree with but can work with when we have common ground. So far I think NDN falls into the latter catagory but, like I said, you may be right and I may just be a slow learner.
Peace,
Andrew
Nobody said it wasn’t ok to be a centrist, Republican, etc., Mr. White.
Parker’s point is that the NDN agenda is being deliberately, consciously, pushed–to the exclusion of all other viewpoints on certain blogs, or at least it’s being attempted.
It’s ok to be a populist or liberal/progressive, too, isn’t it? Because to read Kos’ posts on DKos, or Jerome on MyDD, you’d think that being a liberal IS a crime, or at least a mortal sin.
And they ban people who are populist/progressive voices. More and more are getting banned or shoved out of their blogs. Don’t you agree we need to hear from everybody and let people decide for themselves among the varying political philosophies and viewpoints?
It’s called “democracy”. It used to be all the rage, but apparently has fallen out of fashion.
Shadowthief,
Well… Parker has claimed that NDN = DLC and that is the point I’ve been disagreeing about. The evidence he has shown to support his claim that NDN = DLC simply shows that NDN is centrist and corporate oriented. Fine. I don’t care for that either but that isn’t why I think the DLC is the enemy. It is simply something I disagree with. It just seems to me from Parker’s writing here and in the past that centrist = bad guy and that is why I said it is ok to be centrist.
Now… on the subject of Jerome and Markos and their websites. They are consultants and as long as they are open about who they work for it is fine by me. Jerome works for Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner. Therefore I take that into consideration when I read his writing. It is highly likely to be slanted.
If they are excluding people for being liberal or progressive then their sites will die. Period. The vast majority of the netroots are progressive minded folks. Not all but by far, most. Markos in particular has already lost the vast majority of his early readership. Most are here or LeftWing or Street Prophets or elsewhere. If they want to kill their sites that is their choice too. I spend far less time on both of them then I used to already.
I’m all for Democracy. I am not in favor of slander and so far when I hear NDN = DLC I hear slander unless evidence of their active attempts to kills the progressive/activist/netroots class… me and you in other words… is brought to light. I ain’t seen that yet.
Peace,
Andrew
Oh yeah… here is where Simon Rosenberg sells out the unions so he can make money from a cable company
Here is what Rosenberg will do for a buck (warning PDF)
Here are the hard working Americans he was more that happy to sell out (warning PDF)
This is why the DLC/NDN are pushing to get rid of issues and ideology… it slows them down from ripping off the Democratis party… all those pesky unions keep getting in the way of their lobbying contract… and those women keep fouling up there lobbying contracts with religo-facists who want to play God with women’s bodies.
What is so infuriating is that they have ALMOST successfully sold this LIE that it is the special interest fault… notice how quiet they are about Arnold getting his butt kicked by all those special interested groups in California… I mentioned this once on MyDD and was told that it was a special case to California and could not be imitated elsewhere…just like they kept saying that Hackett almost victory was a special case because it was a special election.
California is a perfect example of the “BIG TENT”… Rosenberg must cringe everytime he see photos of firemen, nurses, cops, teachers, gays and Operation pink froming alliances and kicking the terminators butt…
funding. The netroots needs financial support and I accept that fact, it has the potential to promote oppression and abuse though. I disagree though that this has ruined the netrooots chances though for creating serious, positive, for the people by the people change! It will weed out the boys from the men and the girls from the women and the dedicated from the manipulative. It does cause for there to be an instant “suspectfullness” though of the blogosphere now. It used to be pure of heart and natural energy and natural outrage fueled it……and now corporate dollars are going to fuel it and that has been very deadly for the human race lately!
Booman, understand one thing loud and clear. All money comes with strings. My parents knew that in the 50’s for goodness sake and i’m sure every generation did before the big sellout in the “Greed is Good” Reagan 80’s.
If you take the money at some point the bill will come due, it always does and to think otherwise is naive. Take the high road now while you can.
That’s why it’s always so instructive to “follow the money” — because you learn who’s holding the other end of the string.
Whixh is why we need to find out more about Simon Rosenberg since he is the self proclaimed “Sugar Daddy” of the blogosphere.
well, let’s say all money comes with strings then. But what are the strings?
I have only contacted an advertiser twice. Once I asked them to change an image. And once I wrote them to thank them for advertising and invite them to continue advertising in the future.
All my ads are unsolicited. So, I hardly feel the tug of any strings.
My bottom line is that I’m not going to accept any money if I have to think about what I write as a result. Will I grow dependent on any one source of income? I doubt it. I live like a monk, and any extra money will probably go to my bar tab.
It’s a real concern though, and I am trying to figure out how to pay my bills doing this blogging thing, without being influenced by people whose politics I don’t support.
That is why I am asking questions.
Remember this Rolling Stone article: Four Amendments & a Funeral
The takeaway from this article:
In a word … we’re fucked… by both sides of the ailse. Which is why Rosenberg was so keen to pour money into the netroots to shut it up.
and how is supposed to shut me up? What’s your theory?
My thought would be to make sure you don’t get a significant enough portion of your income from any one source to be dependent on that source. As long as you can walk away at any time, you can continue to be independent. No, not as independent as if you didn’t take money from anyone, but few of us are in a position to do that.
If people have an environment to interact with that isn’t tainted and where free speech is still free speech, we will all eventually be drawn to that as we all face our many life challenges. If you continue on this way I know that this Blog will become very successful in worldly terms. I already classify it as enormously successful, as time marches on though the unification that this blog represents without having to abandon the common sense practices and successes that made the Democratic party will become a huge commodity. A commodity that will be grown here and other forums that are able to adhere to your standards. I feel very blessed to have you Booman, and thanks for the sanctuary you have given my political beliefs and ideas and the support that you all have shared with me!
Chris Bowers was advertising in DK diaries for people who want to be paid to blog!!!
by having this Iraq thing come to an end so that I can sleep at night without having to wonder who is going to die tomorrow over there and if and when they call or demand my husband back over there! I would blog a million miles for that, everything else that he could or would pay me with has no value to me right now because I have no quality of life. We live day to day in SURVIVAL MODE and have to force ourselves out of it moments at a time. I suppose that is why I have felt the most ALIVE in Crawford Texas and in D.C. with my friends. I am different when I am in those places, standing up to the lies is empowering. Trying to live with them when your loved ones hang in the balance is so defeating!
Money always comes with strings.
Here is a diary that was been deleted by the powers that be on MyDD but is still up at MLW:
Rosenberg: That was then…this is now
NDN is offering to fund the blogosphere?
Of that I would be very leary. Whether them or anyone else. I am a big, big fan of the small donation model promoted by Howard Dean. Much to my regret I haven’t been able to justify helping to fund you or any of my other favorite blogs. I’ve had to sharply curtail my political and charitable contributions due to health problems in the family that are not covered due to the discriminatory nature of the health insurance “system” in this country. We aren’t there yet but we are one of those families in danger of going bankrupt due to the healthcare crisis in this country.
All that tangent aside… it would be my hope that you and other blog sites can survive based on small member contributions and not corporate or PAC funding. Regardless of what NDN has to say on the matter, they do have an agenda and they are in the business of spending money to promote that agenda. This doesn’t have to be underhanded in order to be corrupting.
However, expenses are real and it is up to the membership (myself and my troubles included) to free folks like you from the need to consider such offers. If we don’t do our part then we haven’t a leg to stand on to complaing about how you fund your site.
The one last thing I’ll say about this follows up on MilitaryTracy’s comments… openness is the key. It is the same issue as Jerome making it clear that he is a paid consultant for the Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner campaigns/PAC’s. Nothing wrong at all with him making these choices on how to make a living or who to support. It simply needs to be out in the open to in order to main proper ethical and conflict of interest perspectives.
Peace,
Andrew
What do you mean by “odd ways,” Rosie?
Nothing nefarious, just grouping by likes and dislikes, hobbies, interests, attitudes, opinions weight, food, you name it etc.
I’ve been labeled or grouped as too tin foily- with little thought that I might just be very open minded and cynical due to my personal experiences.
I think I see what you mean, but I just refuse to let the possibility of outside “others” keep me from the pleasure of the Cafe, for instance, or the dog blogging, or the book club, or whatever. But then, I haven’t had the experiences you’ve had, either.
You often call yourself more paranoid than the average bear. It’s funny, but I really like having paranoid people around. Seriously. Just because you’re always looking over your shoulder doesn’t mean there isn’t anything there to see. I pay attention, even though I may not end up agreeing with you. Like now.
I don’t think I’ve called myself paranoid- I consider myself on High-Alert.
“High alert” it is. 🙂
Alert level orange as it were.
…than actual grassroots support.
who had some brains have had to go somewhere for their news fix. A large chunk have wound up at Dkos else we would not have had that stupid diary about “kill the talk about Fitzmas”. Freeped is a work that seeps into my mind!
Well. With leaders like Hillary Clinton, Chuch Schumer and John “I’ll Fight the War More Effectively” Kerry, is it any wonder that the Democratic party and blogosphere are in trouble. The country is leaving them behind. At lease we still have the pond.
It is a frightening thing. Soomehow they really think that if they yell enough at women, and command us to vote for the small (d) because they know what is in our best interests, we will do as they say.
There is the underlying assumption that women can’t do math. Hmm, if the number of anti-women dems INCREASES, then the odds of us being hosed are GREATER, not smaller.
Anyway, instead of listening to our concerns and actively bringing us back into the “big” tent, we are being dismissed with astounding speed and indifference. I fully expect a backlash if dems don’t win because they don’t get the female vote.
The only shrill voices I hear are theirs. The women I meet are quiet and serious- no votes when there is no effort to fight for us.
to a man in the military who could be a fine drill Sargent. Yelling and commanding me to anything is futile. I just take all the screaming and hollering energy and grab it right out of the air, put a bow on it, and do something else with it uniquely all mine that can often be wonderful. Dkos and the whole WOMEN SUCK BECAUSE WE SAY SO! just cracks me up anymore! No pussy for you guys!!!! All you cocksacks can go “hang around” on a corner together and watch everybody else have fun while you all tell dirty jokes and make up lies about getting some!
I wish I could give you a 12 just for the “cocksacks” comment!
but I can’t. During the pie wars a guy wrote a diary about taking a couple of weeks vacation and coming back to find all of the bright sexy articulate women at Dkos gone, and all that was left was a bunch of cocksacks. I kind of lost my mind one night during the pie wars so my husband became a bit interested and he just roared when he read that guys diary. I don’t think I’ll ever forget it.
Any site that bans you is banning a person who could have helped to keep them honest, even if that person tended to get under their skin.
I haven’t followed any of the Massa business and I couldn’t find any abortion info in the MDD link you provided or the links it provided. I went to his site looking for his position on choice and didn’t find a single word on that subject which is telling all on its own. Is he anti-choice?
I went to his site looking for his position on choice and didn’t find a single word on that subject which is telling all on its own. Is he anti-choice?
I did a brief google search on this and other issues when he was FPed on DK (as I do on all of the ‘fighting’ dems they promote) and he does appear to be anti-choice.
He is also a former aide of Fox news consultant, Wesley Clark and, apparently, a lifelong republican who feels betrayed by his party. While I welcome the votes of republicans who feel betrayed by their party I do not welcome men or women whose solution to their political dilemma is to change the Democratic party platform into something which precisely resembles what was, 20 years ago, a solid republican platform. I don’t dislike moderate republicans but I don’t vote for them, I don’t give them money and I don’t have any respect for the men who would shove them down our collective throats. As ordinary citizens we have very little say in the direction our laws and government take but I still maintain that there’s a vast difference between actively participating in ones own oppression and fighting those who would oppress. It is, apparently, a difference lost on the triangulating, no ‘litmus test’ blog masters but that does not mean I have to support their efforts.
If Parker was banned it was because she correctly pointed out that the guy is a freakin republican and a martial republican, at that.
Thanks, Colleen. “participating in one’s own oppression.” Yes, that is exactly the issue.
Massa was endorsed early on by Gene Taylor of MS. Gene is beloved (for some years now) by the Christian Coalition, is a fine upstanding member of Democrats for Life. IIRC a 0 from NARAL.
Y’all can google.
The photo of Gene was prominent at one time on Massa’s endorsement page. He has since tried to show he has local endorsements. There was a photo of them together in Taylor’s DC office with the text that he endorsed Massa. Along with Clark. Awww..
Oh the tent for the Big Blog Boys is very small. Few women, only certain gays…
Kinda like the party they support so viciously.
LOL this is not cross posted at Kos. And for a reason.
Y’all have a good small “d” democratic day. It is the only way.
My mantra: if they voted for the war, they don’t need my vote. Their vote told me very clearly: life does not matter, only the interests of the State.
Hey colleen, I research all the ”Fighting Dems” too.
Bottom of the barrel is David Ashe of VA.
I ahve Bush as a president, no opposition party and I don’t need anybody more in congress that mounts a page like the one I linked to.
Hersh on Thursday at the Society for Ethical Culture in NYC, with Ritter, said that last month there was a so far undisclosed meeting of top Democratic theoreticians (who knew anyone claimed that dubious honor?) Sandy Berger and Madeleine Allbright were two he named. The decision was to do nothing and say nothing as the R are imploding.
lets see, I think Reagan was supposed to implode too. Iran-Contra did nto do it, the Dems decided NOT to investigate October surprise (circa 1980) they dropped i when Clinton perot’d into office.
Instead we saw Reagan buried pharaonic style last year, covered by all three cables for a week.
BULLSHIT. Some PR about “fighting Dems” is to confuse the (net) rank and file. LOL.
BULLSHIT. Some PR about “fighting Dems” is to confuse the (net) rank and file. LOL.
I think the ‘fighting’ part has to do with military service (at least that appears to be the common denominator), it certainly has nothing to do with political acumen, effective governance or basic values. It’s the Wesley Clark mentality; candidates who run based on their former careers in the military or as athletes or, for that matter, the mentality which has placed the irritating Ed Schultz in the prime daytime spot on AA or caused a recent losing Presidential candidate to behave like an idiot for months during a crucial time thereby almost erasing the traditional Dem advantage amongst women. It’s pie wars translated into Realpolitik and public policy. These guys don’t just not take the women’s vote seriously, they’re fundamentally and ideologically opposed to the notion.
Yeah, being a decorated combat veteran really insulated Kerry from attacks, didn’t it? And decorated combat veteran John McCain was totally insulated from attacks by HIS service record.
Here is a funny tidbit. Eric Massa gets shepherded around the Dkos diaries (intro’d and re-intro’d) by a former oppo operative for Clark at his LR HQ. Not a very good one. I was laughing hard the day in March 2004 when he assured the huddled masses at Dkos that he had “looked into” Kerry’s service record and “there was nothing”. Veyr unimaginative fellow and very unaware of American biases.
It was reported in the FT (a direct quote and atributed) Dec 19, 2003 that “by the time we [the Rs] are done with Kerry, nobody will know what side he had been on in the War”.
LOL. Gotta laugh. Dems are NEVER ready for what is coming.
And hapless Kerry never released his full Navy records. He needed to do that, early and fully. He also NEVER released his full medical record for the cancer treatment, Feb 2003. He needed to do that as well. He really did need to, if running for the office of the president of the US mattered at all…. Really…
gotta laugh… we are so ill served by the governing class.
Nominally Democratic politicians “forget” to mention their position on reproductive rights for only one reason.
Because they know you wouldn’t like it.
Somehow they never forget to list all the ways they can take your money; “Now, let’s see . . . will you be using a check or a credit card?”
Nominally Democratic politicians “forget” to mention their position on reproductive rights for only one reason.
Because they know you wouldn’t like it.
Same goes for those who ban, marginalize, demean and ridicule anyone who points out inconvenient facts.
I would have a good deal more respect for these guys if they weren’t so inclined to refuse to even honestly discuss the consequences of the public policies these execrable men promote. The truth of the matter is that ‘Democrats for Life’ are about as competent in the arena of public policy as the neo-cons are in the policies involving the ME. They’re completely and utterly incompetent. They have no plan.
“Now, let’s see . . . will you be using a check or a credit card?”
See? Isn’t that pro-choice enough for you?
and I think the healthy way recent flaps here have resolved themselves intelligently and amicably show that BMT is a stronger place.
I think the Coburn Amendment was well worth praising, and I had no qualms about calling “Democrat” Ken Salazar’s office and delivering him an earful for voting against it.
I agree with you. There are still a few wounds, I think, but I hope they’re healing, too.
We’re also made stronger by BooMan’s willingness, as he expressed above, to pursue answers and engage directly, rather than to chop off heads.
Imagine how the pie fights and hippie-bashing might have gone differently had Markos actually participated in any of the violent conversations he began.
Not to mention calling out people for being pricks.
Yeah, but he would have had to call himself out, wouldn’t he?
Ouch.
Kos resembles that remark.
She posted an article about a candidate. The article was from The American Prospect. It was pointing out some things about the candidate. I did not see the post, but she lives near me in Florida. She wrote me, very upset. It is not like her to post anything ugly, but she said he called her a troll.
Since the thread was deleted, there is no record. I would imagine she was critical of the candidate, who is anti-choice because of his religion.
I just happened to see this post, haven’t been online much this week. But hubby is out of the hospital now, so I have a little time to peruse.
Our DFA group in this area, of which she is a member, is pretty outspoken….but we are mostly nice decent people and not rude.
Just thought I’d mention it.
The first time I was threated by Jerome was because I posted an article OF HIS praising Hackett.
Her banning was about another candidate, before Hackett.
They are too greedy.
Jerome shut down MyDD when he went to work for Dean. That’s not exactly what you’d expect from a greedhead.
As for these other charges, I suspend judgment, as I have no first-hand knowledge.
But I do know that some people are quite sensitive about posting whole articles or even long excerpts because of copyright issues. As an writer myself, I can appreciate that. So that’s also in the back of my mind.
That said, it has virtually no effect on my view of MyDD.
The main reason I go there is that Chris Bowers is one of the best online political analysts. The second reason I go there is that the site attracts some other thoughtful posters–along with some that are truly apeshit. (But I just don’t click on their diaries.)
Jerome and Markos are in full defence mode right now, Parker, in the wake of revelations that Jerome received $30,000 in consulting fees from Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Here’s the basics:
October 4th: Jerome Armstrong of MyDD endorses Brown over Hackett for the Democratic primary (they’re contesting who will face incumbent Republican Senator DeWine in the 2006 election).
October 4th: Markos Moulitsa aka Kos of DailyKos says Hackett is “my kind of guy” and that he prefers him over Brown, whom Kos derides as a “career politician”.
October 6th: Kos calls for Hackett to “step aside”, saying that he now prefers Brown.
And there was also some funny business with an “ActBlue” ad, which purported to donate money to a general election fund but which actually linked to Brown’s campaign site (this only happened on DKos). Kos claims that it was all a computer glitch and that it’s now been fixed–and the ad was changed from a picture of Brown alone to a picture of both Hackett and Brown.
Remember that Brown originally declined to enter the Senate race, telling the Democratic Party leadership that he didn’t want to make a Senate run to spare his family the stress, etc.
Brown then changed his mind, but said he will not start campaigning until after the November 8, 2005 election–when Ohio voters will decide whether or not Brown’s congressional district boundaries will be remapped via a partisan process (bad news for Brown, as it would be a Republican legislature doing so) or via a nonpartisan process (good news for Brown, as that would probably save his congressional seat).
In other words, Brown and the Democratic Party insiders have been accused of playing both ends against the middle. Certain Jerome Armstrong, Kos’ co-author of the upcoming book, “Crashing the Gates”, has not acted very ethically in promoting Brown on MyDD while cashing a very large cheque, and Armstrong’s own improprieties have naturally raised questions about whether or not Kos is part of the deal.
I confronted Kos on a diary that was frontpaged and the answer Kos gave was very lawyerly–he does not do “consulting work”. However, my question was NOT whether or not he did “consulting work”, it was whether or not he had decided to switch his endorsement from Hackett to Brown after learning that Brown had tonnes of cash to spend on blogads, while Hackett, quite conversely, needs all the assistance he can get raising funds. Kos got huffy and refused to answer; Armando got downright abusive with another person (Pounder). My comments and those of Pounder were removed from the diary, then restored after I publicly complained about the censorship–although many of Armando’s comments (an insensate, profane rant) have been permanently excised from that diary.
Oh, and I was banned from DailyKos, then unbanned after my public complaint, and am now banned from posting there–presumably for the unpardonable sin of daring to ask Kos questions about his remarkable change of heart, and the possible influence his writing partner, Mr. Armstrong, may have had in influencing that decision.
The DailyKos diary (what’s left of it after the cutting and pasting Kos and Armando did to conceal yet another embarrassing performance by Armando):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/23/13416/187
Pounder’s blogs on the topic (must reads for anyone trying to make sense of this Hackett-Brown issue):
http://www.buckeyesenateblog.com/2005/10/lefty_blog_payo_1.html
http://www.buckeyesenateblog.com/2005/10/what_kinda_of_p.html
I think they are going to do themselves in.
It is only a matter of time until Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Moulitsa, et al, are compelled to answer questions in a forum they do NOT control.
However, I do not want to see DailyKos destroyed–I only want to prevent it from being corrupted, if that is possible. If DKos is destroyed, then something better must take its place. The Netroots are important and there must be a “big site” where a diverse collection of people can come together.
I agree DK is more than the front pagers however most of the brightest and best diarist have left.
This all will evolve however, the more people like Kos and Jerome try to control and own the blogosphere the more they will quicken their own demise.
But Jerome is almost the opposite of Kos. He’s very hands-off at MyDD. You can go for months sometimes without any sense of him being there at all.
And he also just pops up in the comments sometimes, with just a couple of sentences. Very low-key. It’s not like he dominates the place.
Kos, well, he does tend to get into a huff rather easily, and let everyone know about it. It has a strong effect on the tone of the site. Pretty hard to miss. The complaints you’re raising about MyDD aren’t like that. I don’t see evidence of similar conduct running rampant there.
Paul, I think you are missing something.
Jerome Armstrong (the co-author of “Crashing the Gates” with Mr. Moulitsa, aka Kos) took $30,000 from the Brown campaign as a consultant and then proceeded to machete-chop anybody who said anything against Brown. Mr. Armstrong banned Parker for daring to question his wisdom. MyDD can now be considered an agent of the Brown campaign thanks to the $30,000 in consultant fees. MyDD is bought and paid for.
Is that treading lightly? Seems to me that Mr. Armstrong leaves you alone so long as everything is going his way.
I’m sorry, but I’m still missing the heart of this story. Because I don’t see the part where Parker was banned.
Nor did I get the part about machete-chopping. In fact, there was a diary about Hackett on the recommended list at MyDD earlier today.
This is all quite different from the way Kos has, on a number of different occasions, gotten quite huffy on the front page. I’m not saying that Jerome did nothing wrong. I’m saying that (1) I haven’t seen it and (2) it’s not in line with how Jerome has acted in the past.
This should have been obvious when Kos started railing against the financial disclosure regulations Feingold was proposing. He’s got some funding sources that he knows his readers would object to, and which might even totally discredit him. This is, of course, exactly why Feingold’s resolutions need to be passed.
So while the blogsphere is inherently more democratic and distributed than traditional media, it is still vulnerable to the same kinds of manipulation as long as we rely on a few big voices.
Kos always says he never does CONSULTING work.
I believe him.
However, that does not answer the question.
Question: What are the financing sources of DailyKos?
Answer: I, Markos Moulitsa, no longer do consulting work.
Does that answer match with that question?
It’s a very lawyerly answer, I’ll give him that. It’s not what he’s saying, it’s what he IS saying. And Kos gets very, very nervous when anyone asks that question or anything resembling it…and Armando pounds at them with all the fury of a rabid wolverine high on angel dust.
The fact that he no longer does consulting work itself seems to imply that he has something or someone else funding the site. I wonder who it is? Rosenburg? The DFL? No way does he make enough from ads to cover bandwidth costs for such a huge site, not unless his ad rates are astronomical.
The numbers don’t match up.
I compared site operation costs with blogad revenues and Kos is running a deficit.
Unless he has additional sources of funding. Remember, DKos is his bread and butter–his primary source of income.
The money is coming from SOMEWHERE. Kos doesn’t want us to know where.
My question is, why not? If there’s nothing to hide, why not just reveal his sources of funding? I pointed out to him that by refusing to answer such questions, he only fuels speculation. That seemed to anger him all the more.
Of course it angers him. Do you remember his debates with Feingold? He kept spouting nonsense about blog funding disclosure leading to Republicans moving their fundraising and blogging operations off-shore, out of reach of all campaign finance laws. And about how these disclosure rules would kill Democratic blogs, while allowing Republican ones to flourish…
Basically, the standard “If you do this, the world ends” bullshit used by politicians and political hacks whenever someone’s about to do something to uncover their dirty dealing.
FEC BLOG REGULATIONS NOW
I mean… yack… this has become an Insiders Club.
Now they got Jeff Seeman shilling this DLC/NDN shit:
“I’ve spent plenty of time with Brown and I’ve seen him in action. So will the voters of this state, and coupled with his record, he WILL bring in Independents and moderate Republicans.”
What the fuck is this shit???
Thank god I never gave money to Seeman… when was the last time you read of a Republican joyfully proclaiming that they can attract Democrats … what freaking LOSERS!!!
Um, Parker, this was in response to an earlier post by labanman which read, in part:
Whoever you agree with in this debate, both are saying that their candidate can win independents and Republicans. (This was Hackett’s big selling point, remember?)
Given the large numbers of Republicans who don’t support their party’s positions (most of whom often don’t know it), this is not a bad thing. Get them voting for Democrats often enough, and maybe they’ll someday realize they are Democrats.
I would feel quite different if Brown were a longtime loser who didn’t stand for anything. But he’s not. He’s won statewide before, and he has a liberal record. I’m not taking sides here. I think there’s legitimate arguments for both candidates. I’d like to point out that we can have strong differences without all of them being signs of betrayal.
I’m not picking sides in that race. There are things I like about both of them, though overall on paper Brown looks like someone I’d be more closely in tune w/. Not my state, and neither of them is antichoice like Casey, Kaine and some of the other candidates seem to be.
In any event, I wish they and their supporters would just roll up their sleeves, quit bitchin’ about when someone declared, and start training for a good, strong, contentious primary. I firmly believe that we need to have a series of knockdown, drag-out contests to hash out a new direction for the party. From ferment comes the finest brews!
And I hate to see everyone thinking the worst possible things about each other.
Me, I hope whoever loses this primary will come back and win some other top statewide office. I was much more partial to Metzenbaum than Glenn. But I was a happy camper when they were Ohio’s Senators, know what I mean?
So basically the short story is that it is a sell out of the netroots for advertising revenues and/or “campaign fees”.
That is just flat out fucked up.
This ain’t just a few pennies.
This ain’t right.
I don’t get it.
This diary is called “Banned from MyDD” but you say nothing about being banned.
What you do talk about is one diary being on the recommended list when a diary with more recommends is not. But this happens sometimes because of aging.
While I’m politically sympathetic with almost all the points you make, I’m left pretty confused.
What’s more, Chris Bowers, who posts far more often than Jerome, has argued consistently against the “logic” of moving to the right. So I think a more nuanced view of MyDD is called for.
The Bigger Problem of Techno-Hierarchy
Having said all that, I think you’ve highlighted something that’s a bigger problem than people realize: while the blogosphere is far more democratic than the old media, it is hardly a world apart, and it is hardly free from the hierarchical structures that impede a truly democratic discourse.
This isn’t anything new. The ultimate absurdity came for me when I was the chief contributor to the LA Indymedia site. Indymedia’s politics are expressly anarchist, supposedly non-hierarchical. But that just means that the hierarchies are informal. The rich kids who can afford to spend days on end hanging out together, jetting around to the demonstration hot spots worked and networked for months on end on getting the rules they wanted, while I, like a poor peon, actually spent my time putting up content on the front page–my own and other peoples–starting a media criticism project and trying to recruit new participants. I wanted to radically democratize the site governance and presentation, so that there wasn’t just one front page, but people could customize it to fit their primary interest(s). I finally gave up when I realized I no longer believed it was a good thing to be trying to recruit others to join. Instead, I left myself.
The main problem was the people. But the main issue was site design structure and who it served to empower in what ways. I have nothing against the idea of highlighting certain stories for special attention. I think that’s a very valuable option.
What bothers me is the lack of flexibility in providing for alternate views, which should include the options of (1) letting people create their own parameters for selecting highlighted content and (2) providing means for people to do this collectively, both intentionally and algorithmically (as Soapblox does–see My Left Wing for how this works–by letting you check out other diaries recommended by those who recommend a particular diary.)
This is a much more fundamental problem, IMHO. It’s not just about DKos and MyDD, it’s about the entire blogosphere and then some. We need to be engaged in a serious ongoing project of finding ways to reshape our discussion spaces to make them more democratic, more immediately responsive to our needs and desires–and, of course, to make them more directly relevant to taking effective action in the real world.
This paragraph, from the diary, jumps out at me:
I agree with the sentiment. But the banning here is implied, not stated. I feel like I missed a scene.
I was that this is not a rant about banning but what is implied by the banning… Agree with me or get off of my blog
I agree on the “democratization” aspect of the blogosphere, Paul–basically, what we have now are site owners telling us, “This is my blog–get off if you don’t like it!” Now, BooMan doesn’t do that, but the other proprietors have gotten pretty high-handed and dictatorial. And the fact remains that we here at the sufferance of the site owner and can be kicked off at any time for any reason, or no reason at all.
The answer usually is, “Go start your own blog.” That doesn’t solve the problem for two reasons: First, you are just starting another privately-owned petty dictatorship and second, the more we splinter the blogosphere, the more likely we are to be talking amongst ourselves and not reaching a wider audience. Kos, for example, has purposely driven people off his site who don’t agree with him on a host of issues…and now those people are cut out of the discussion and don’t share contrary views. I’ve been run out of there and been subjected to the Two Minute Hate more than a few times merely for asking questions. The Kos Loyalty Police say I’m a “troll” because I asked Kos why he opposed blog regulation, and because I support it.
Troll = takes a position opposite that of Kos.
So–what is the answer, Paul? How do we democratize the blogosphere?
One idea is a group blog owned by a non-profit, with a charter, bylaws and governing structure explicitly protect openness.
Instead of a single front page, you have cookie-enabled selection of your default front page, and you have a dynamic menu system that allows you to create and manage your own list of different configurations. Configurations can be done by tagging. My preferred approach uses two types of tagging, one that’s completely democratic, created on the fly, one that’s regulated by discussion to create heterarchical structures (multiple overlapping hierarchies, such as National-State-Local, Law-Constitution-Bill of Rights-First Amendment, etc.) But this is the sort of thing that should be worked out by the community, not put into the bylaws.
The heterarchical tagging should represent real user interest as well. At some points in the heterarchy, there will be sufficient participation to form an editing collective. People here will function like front page posters. (My Left Wing has a very good model for this. Those with Front Page privilege can front page their own diaries or anyone else’s, and there are some guidelines. A more rigid structure may be needed, but I prefer leaving that as open as possible.) Any node below one with an editing collective will inherent its front page. Where there’s an editing collective at a lower node, they can winnow stories out by “unpromoting” them. Where there’s not, we need some sort of winnowing procedure, since multiple inheretence means that front pages would change faster and faster the farther down you go.
Of course, there are two questions here that need serious consideration: How do you form editing collectives? And how do you more stories up the heterarchy? I’d say that ratings should move stories up the heterarchy, subject to editing collective choices.
And editing collectives? First of all, they should be fluid. Ideally, people would serve for a while, then do something else. Some might prefer doing it once a week every month. Some might want to do a 3-month stint, then take time off. We should think of how to accomodate a wide range of different sorts of participation. The less we make it a scarce resource, the better.
We’d have something like a trusted user status, but it would be crossed with a participation record for heterarchical tags, so that we’d have a pool of people who are familiar enough with a topic area that they are legitimately regarded as stakeholders in that area. These are the people who would constitute the pool from whom the editorial collective would arise. I’d favor something simple, such as self-nomination, and a certain number of supporting votes to add someone to the collective. Kicking people off is a harder call. We need to allow it, to prevent infiltration or other destructive developments. But we need to make it a deliberative process, so that it doesn’t get abused to silence challenging points of view.
I would strongly recommend the creation of major channel divisions–which should be subject to regular review. This would facilitate breaking news being separated from more strategic and philosophical discussions, which natural flourish on a different rhythm.
And, of course, we need a well thought out way to dynamically handle blogrolls and other links, to make them appropriate to whatever page view the user selects.
This is an idea of a how a super group blog might be organized–one that could conceivably grow in size and traffic to be considerably larger than DKos is now. But note–one of the important aspects of such a blog would be the fluid subcommunities it would help create, and the links to other blogs–and other websites/resources that would be particular to each of those subcommunities. Thus, this would not just be about building a site, it would be about building a node in a larger infrastructure, and about building webs of community, not just one glob-like community.
Anyway, that’s just a rough outline of one idea. I’m sure there are others.
We just need to slap a great big FEC regulation on these bad boys they will straighten up and fly right after that…
?????
I’m getting increasingly confused as the day wears on. Did someone slip some acid into my bitstream? And if so, where are the pretty colors?
…exists in various forms in existing software already.
Scoop has had article submission/editing phase/promotion for quite some time now, as demonstrated by Kuro5hin.com (the site of the Scoop developers, I believe). Drupal/CivicSpace also have modules that can function in this way, promoting articles that get community support.
But there’s a more fundamental question here, as I see it, and it is behind the obvious question: Are sites like dK, MyDD, BMT and other “community” sites truly open community sites, or private blogs? What seems clear to me is that they are private blogs, and have been managed as such. That’s fine with me.
But here’s the crux of the matter, in my view: When it comes to private blogs, are they grassroots endeavors? Are they blog businesses? Are they paid money by undisclosed political groups? These are valid questions, and in the interest of transparency in politics, especially in the post-Cluetrain online world, it’s in the greater interest for people to respond to these questions.
For example, Wonkette is a blog business. Ana Marie Cox is the site’s paid editor/blogger. Everybody knows this. I see no compromise in her voice simply because she’s paid (though I have no non-paid Ana to compare against). In other words, there is transparency. Disclosure. And it works. (Some readers may not like her blog, but that’s beside the point.)
In other words, for me the key issue is secrecy about money. With disclosure, we know what/whom we’re dealing with. With secrecy, well, we don’t like it when the other guys do it, do we?
The question, as I took it, was not about “who can you trust?” but how can you build democratic community online. And this is obviously about much, much more than transparency.
And, of course, about much, much more than the technology. Indymedia was running software back in 1999/2000 that could do most of what I’m talking about, if people really wanted it to do that. But we still don’t have anything I’m aware of that does it all.
That’s because we think much more easily along the lines you’re talking about–“What would make for a good blog model to solve X problem?”–than we do along the lines of “What would help transform our entire political culture?”
I think that the community sites/private blogs dichtomy is totally misguided. They are privately owned and they are community sites. Just like coffeehouses. And that’s cool. Who doesn’t like coffeehouses, and appreciate all they’ve done for culture in the past several hundred years?
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think about building something more radically democratic.
Well if you’re talking about the entire political dynamic, you have to get away from blogs altogether. Earlier this year, 2/3 of online users had never even heard of blogs. I was politically active and blogging since 2001, but never even heard of dKos until the last election.
I think it’s a bit much at this point to expect revised blog structures to change our political culture.
And I do think transparency is very important. It’s not everything, but it’s a start, especially online, where “reality” seems to be redefined every day.
I think I need to clarify a bit here.
There’s a longterm worldwide trend toward democratization, not just in formal terms, but in terms of basic values and motivations. (See for example, the work of the World Values Survey.) This, too, is much broader than the online world, much less blogging.
I don’t expect the altering of blog structures, ownership and governance to cause the change in our political culture, so much as I sense their potential to siginificantly facilitate it.
In particular, the more that blogging can help create community, which can then feedback into other outlets, the more significant this will be. Cross-catalytic changes have the capacity to develop critical mass very quickly, even starting with very small numbers.
Margaret Mead, you know.
…then you need transparency. Without transparency, you get a bullying culture characterized by manipulation and contempt for the “peasants.” With transparency, the Cluetrain-type netroots can flourish. Without it, you get more one-way communications, with “conference calls” where only 3 or 4 people speak, with elites distributing and demanding repetition of talking points … and everyone else wondering whether the tail is wagging the dog.
The thing is, we haven’t even started to push the envelope on this. And 2006 is just a warm-up for the big game, where real money comes into play.
It took many many years for newspapers to build up credibility, even though they had subscribers, even though they sold advertising, even though they hobnobbed with the power players. Even then, it’s been shakey, and even today there are big falls. (The NYT has not had a good decade so far.)
But at least they are up-front about their structures, who’s in charge, who’s making the calls. They make the effort.
Now that money is flooding into blogs, I think it’s time for blogs to make the effort at transparency even more so than the news media. Otherwise the entire netroots will be written off as paid speech and we’ll have the worldwide usenet. And that’s not what we need right now, imho.
Not by a long shot.
I just had a different focus. A different game in mind.
For me, it’s much less about trying to perfect the emulation of a Lippman-style media online and more about trying to create a Dewey-style democratic community.
Well, that’s a start.
We’d need funding for the non-profit.
The sticky issue is always MONEY.
Money comes with strings.
I’d say, individual contributors with nobody allowed to donate more than $50. Why? Because nobody gets a lot of influence for $50, that’s why.
Starting a truly democratic blog, as opposed to a petty dictatorship, would be a worthy endeavour.
Anybody here willing to accept the challenge?
Actually…
I am wondering if Parker shouldn’t start her (his?) own blog after all. A NDN/DLC Watchdog. Like Media Matters, only for the DLC and NDN and such. I think that would be a welcome addition to the blogosphere!
I don’t want to put this on Parker, if Parker doesn’t want to carry the burden. But if anypne serious–such as Parker–would start such a blog, it would definitely be a boon, and I would love to participate.
This diary was frontpaged:
http://dailykos.com/story/2005/10/23/13016/326
It got VERY few comments for a frontpage diary. But the point wasn’t to discuss Massa’s qualifications, it was really just an advert for his candidacy.
Well, that’s ok–Kos can advocate whatever candidacy he desires. But what was left out of the diary was a discussion of Massa’s politics–the only comments were what a “great guy” he is.
Well, John McCain might be a “great guy”, too–but I wouldn’t vote for him for Congress if I could vote for a progressive Democrat, instead.
showed up for it…
Gotta laugh.
At this point I do not care who they promote as long as they allow for an opposing opinion which they are clearl adversed to.
This mentality of “It’s my blog and you have to agree with me” is going to kill any further “movement”.
Well, I personally think the banning of anyone who has not done something criminal like harassment or making threats is wrong, but it is their blog …
I think the more important point is that it increasingly seems that the blogs which once appeared to be democratic forums for the “netroots,” alternatives to the corporate media, loudspeakers for dissenters… are now acquiring the traits of the very institutions they criticize.
Even though MyDD and kos have always been strategy oriented, I think the change is that contributers and commenters used to play a role in discussing and debating strategy, and they are now expected to either agree with the hosts and frontpagers or get lost. And I think that is exactly the attitude that makes people hate politics. Why people hate partisanship. Whether true or not, it appears the people in charge care more about their images than the welfare of the people.
I think 99.9% of the all the views I see expressed on both DD and kos have some inkling of validity to them, and to ignore these concerns isn’t going to make them go away. Doing so might even get you elected, but at some point people are going to have to address women’s rights, corporatism in politics, and all kinds of other “special interest” issues which are directly negatively impacting the people of this county.
I agree… which is why I am not making a big stink about the banning per se but what it now signals… a complete lack of alternative views.
… what I find funny is that jerome and kos are the ones who are always chiding folks for “PURITY” and “LITMUS TEST” when that is exactly how they run their blogs.
in all of this.
Not so much the banning of Parker, but the purging of Parker’s ideas.
We know what that is, don’t we? Double double ungood.
Not true. Parker attacks others that dont agree with him. You only get banned from mydd for attacking others or being a Republican troll. Parker did the former.
Who, then, is the republican troll?
LOL
parkers comments are available here.
http://www.mydd.com/user/Parker/comments
IMHO i see nothing i would characterize as a viscious attack upon anyone and i went back a few days nor do i see any signs of republican trolling. i actually see more insinuations directed towards parker from other members, but all in all it seems a discussion of issues more so than personal attacks.
does myDD have written standards, or a perhaps a mission statement that spells out unacceptable behavior? do you, as a policy, offer any warnings, or attempt any contact with person to be banned?
What an ass.
Do you all want to see what an “attack” looks like to Jerome Armstrong:
Oh! So you committed the heinous crime of confronting him with his own words. Bad form, that. Don’t you know that it’s just good manners to let the things people say, and want to forget, slip quietly down the memory hole? Who do you think you are? Tim Russert?
Parker attacks others that dont agree with him.
Like this comment in response to Parker correctly pointing out that the candidate with the deeply unfortunate last name of Massa is a republican?
I don’t see Parker ‘attacking’, I see her saying what most people think when they read Mr. Massa’s resume.
DLC and NDN are two different groups that don’t like each other; NDN split away from the DLC. Kos has been a frequent critic of the DLC; they rarely have anything good to say about the DLC.
It’s OK to emphasise what you have in common with other people like Club for Growth, as long as you don’t sell out your principles to do so. So, what principles do you see Kos and DD as selling out to appease the right?
Simon Rosenberg never took back the statements he made about trying to marginalize traditional democratic constituancies to promote a corporate agenda. I personally believe the dlc/ is just the neocons with their eggs in more than one basket. NDN is just another basket. They have adopted a few more liberal issues like national health insurance, but still support the war and other neocon pet causes like the right wing Likudnik agenda in Israel.
Anyway your part of the dhinmi circle jerk so your credibility is low with me.
Have a 4 from me for the reference to the DHinMI circle jerk. LOL
And this is a good place to hang a link. The Common Ills on Rosenberg.
Yeah and another from me.
Anybody can call someone part of someone’s circle jerk if they can’t answer the argument. I haven’t even responded to any of his comments in a long time; he hasn’t responded to any of mine either. So, that hurts your credibility right off the bat, when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Now, if I remember right, one of DLC’s people signed off on the PNAC document, so they have ties with the neocons. But I have no evidence that NDN does; they are a totally seperate group. Just because they are more supportive of the war than we are does not mean that they are therefore a neocon group. And where do you get the idea that they are pro-Likud?
You can support the right of Israel to exist without supporting the Likud Party; they are not one and the same.
I answered your question, and also said you were part of his circle jerk. You are one of the people who 4s him all the time when others give him a one.
Lieberman founded them and they still support him. He is pnac all the way.
The supporting Israel statement is a strawman. Lieberman is a Likudnik.
I told you before, and I’ll tell you again, I haven’t rated him in the last month or so. I haven’t posted a reply to his comments for the last month, and he hasn’t answered any of mine. But I will defend anybody — not just him, but you as well — against any kind of unfair attacks.
But as I said in my other reply, there is no point in bringing up fights that happened a long time ago.
Lieberman was one of the architects of the DLC, and is one of their biggest defenders. But where did he express undying support for Likud, as opposed to Israel? Can you provide a link to such a statement?
Also, NDN was not founded by Lieberman, but founded by Simon Rosenberg, who split off from the DLC to do his own thing. The latter may still fund them, but they are two different groups.
Lieberman supports the settlers. That is the same thing. He was also a founder of NDN and is supported by them.
That is different from being a founder. You’re right about him being a big supporter of the settlers.
But my point is not that the groups the diarist mentions are fine and dandy. My point is that we have to judge each group individually and that it’s not helpful to paint people with a big, broad brush.
If they support Lieberman they are not antidlc. If Kos supports them he is not as antidlc as he pretends. It is better for those of us who are progressive to ditch him and go our own way. They’ll just lead us to another pallad centrist.
It seems like you’re still angry at being banned from Kos twice.
That was a rather tepid admission of Lieberman’s Likudnik leanings, followed by a nasty cheapshot.
That was an observation. Big difference.
I am damned angry that certain voices are getting marginalized, in the party. Antiwar protesters, people who support national health insurance, people who don’t consider the settlers a progressive cause. It particularly angers me that Kos is attracting people who dislike the dlc then banning those who would actually criticize the dlc. I think he is playing a game of trying to keep criticism of the dlc from flaring in the first place, and when it is no longer avoidable he says something himself. He is attracting progressives with misleading rhetoric then when the elections are underway he will ultimately side with dlc candidates. I can already see this trend with Hackett and Brown.
Later today, I will be posting my thoughts on John Kerry’s speech about Iraq. But I have an idea for after that. I will post a 5-part series slamming the DLC for all they’re worth. I will highlight some of the worst things they have done, starting with Iraq. If I am still there and don’t get into the hidden comments there at all, then maybe there is another reason you got banned. But if I am banned for this, then maybe you have a point.
you are weren’t an old timer. They won’t ban you because you were around before Kos started taking donations. You are too high profile. You will have to create a new account for this experiment to be valid. You will also have to slam dlc buggaboos like Hillary Clinton or Joseph Lieberman, or criticize Israel. Better yet criticize NDN.
another thing you could do to make it valid is write a post on real conspiracies, like the standard oil conspiracy, mkultra or the tuskegee experiment, where african americans were deliberately left with untreated syphilis. A precondition is posting under another identity however. Otherwise I am unimpressed. My main criticism of kos is cronyism.
In order to make this something other than an anecdote you would have to do it several times, btw.
I’m not asking you to like Kos or his community. All I am saying is that you are not entitled to your own facts about Kos, and to lump them in with DLC without valid evidence for that is not factual.
And I have no idea what you mean by cronyism. That’s just a bunch of verbiage, unless you tell me what you mean by cronyism.
cronyism. He favors old poster like dhinmi, and lets them act like monsters to the rest of us. I provided facts. Lieberman is NDN and dlc. You just reject those facts. Not my problem.
He was hardly the only person you had problems with. You were repeatedly abusing the ratings system and posting diaries attacking other users, both of which are against the rules.
You got your ability to rate people taken away at kos because you were committing ratings abuse to many people, not just him. When you continued your disruptive behavior, you got banned.
Not only that, that was the second time you had gotten banned at Kos for your behavior.
Your behavior was what got you banned, not any kind of cronyism on their part.
You have two choices: You can either complain about how I am just one of Kos’ cronies and play the victim, and I will document some of the many different times you have abused the ratings system and launched personal attacks on other users when you were at Kos.
Or, you can give evidence, such as links, about how Kos and DLC are allies like you did with Lieberman and NDN or Lieberman and the settlers.
Or, you can accept the fact that I am here to stay, that I don’t give a rat’s behind what people think of Kos as long as they don’t misrepresent facts about their place.
I accepted that Lieberman was pro-settler, and that he was allied with NDN. I thought I made that clear.
I’m not telling you how to feel about Kos. I am making that clear right now.
But making false accusations against me or false accusations against kos is what my problem is.
I’m not here to bring up the fights of the past. All I want is for people to keep their facts straight when attacking other groups. But if you want to bring up the fights of the past, then that is your choice.
document my ratings abuse at the time of my banning. I didn’t even bring up having my ratings ability taken away just for troll rating dhinmi who completely fucking deserved it, which people will see if you really care to document my socalled abuse. Please be my guest. My personal attack was on a poster that was attacking other posters, and was not banned. Cronyism. Pure and simple.
OK, here you go:
You made an assertion that Nancy Pelosi wanted to stay the course in Iraq. In fact, she supports a resolution requiring the President to develop an exit plan within 30 days of the passage.
Do you have links to back up your assertion?
Ok, so you can’t document ratings abuse. You can only document that I don’t like Nancy Pelosi. Uh huh. I see.
Not just that. I documented a factual error you made when you claimed that Pelosi supported the war. Here are the facts: She voted against the war in the beginning, she was one of the critics of the war effort, and she has proposed a resolution forcing Bush to submit an exit plan within 30 days. Could she have done more? Maybe. Am I saying you have to like her? No. But you are not entitled to your own facts about her just because you don’t like her. You made something up about her, and many people lost respect for you over that.
But this was only the beginning. If you want to talk about ratings abuse, here you go.
You rated this poster a 2 when all he was doing was sounding a cautionary note that the Republicans were still a dangerous enemy. In no way did that poster deserve a 2. How do you justify that ratings abuse or your rude and false accusation that he was somehow DLC?
You rated other posters 2’s as well in that thread, as well as say the diary deserved a 2, which it did not.
Giving twos when I think a post is marginal is ratings abuse?
If you don’t agree this post is marginal, that is your problem. It doesn’t mean I am guilty of ratings abuse. Your basically saying anytime you disagree with me that a post is marginal, I am guilty of ratings abuse. How is that not favoritism and cronyism? Is the website run by Stalinists? Why fucking give people the right to rate at all? If they slip up in your eyes they should be shit canned. Anyway, I am sure people seeing this that don’t already go to kos will be inspired to visit by seeing dkos Stalinism in action! I am not ashamed of anything I did, and can’t believe you think I am guilty of ratings abuse based on anything you have linked to. You are basically saying that if I disagree with anyone I should be tomb stoned.
Anyone that looks at your first thread can see that dhinmi was actually the asshole. He accused a person of being a communist, or a fringe lefty so I had a perfect right to shoot back at him with the dlc accusation. I believe he is. They always use this tactic.
Furthermore they can see I documented Pelosi’s prowar duplicity in other posts in your first link. BTW, the resolution does not require a plan for rethdrawal. It calls on Bush to offer a plan for success and asks for an incread in troop numbers.
See she voted down a resolution that would do exactly what you “say” her resolution would do. So how serious is she? I don’t think she is that serious at all, but my opinion didn’t pass muster with the dkos central commitee on vice and virtue. I had to die!
You rated others in that thread 2’s as well, not just that one. You say you rated that person a 2 just because they were a Conservative? That doesn’t cut it with me. I don’t see what that person said that was so Conservative. Mere disagreement does not justify low ratings.
Regarding Pelosi, you don’t understand the difference between a strtegic decision to frame the resolution in a way that would win more votes and support for the war. A legislator will try to frame their resolutions in a way that will be most acceptable for the other side. That is different than suddenly supporting the war.
But the clear intent of her resolution is to bring the troops home and force the President to present measurable objectives for the progress of the war, which he has not done.
Could this resolution go farther? Maybe. But just because it does not go far enough for you does not mean she is pro-war.
Now, you have a lot more explaining to do. You supported Justin Raimondo, her one-time Republican opponent in SF. Now, I like his site, I think it has some of the best criticisms of the war.
But the problem is, he has some extreme views which means he should not be elected for office. Views such as these:
So, you should have to explain:
–Do you support FDR and the New Deal?
–Do you oppose Joe McCarthy?
–Do you support the work of Garet Garrett?
–If your answers are yes, yes, and no, then why are you so supportive of Raimondo, whose answers would be no, no, and yes?
Keep these facts in mind:
–Many people did not respect you over at Kos. It was not just one prominent poster. They did not respect you for the following reasons:
1. You supported a known extremist;
2. You repeatedly made ad homenim attacks on many posters and called them names without factual basis, not just one;
3. You downrated many different people for no reason. You downrated many different people just in that one thread alone.
Now, you probably fit in here better than you do there; many people here don’t like Kos. But if you start doing the things here that you did over there, people will lose respect for you and start downrating you like they did over there. And you will get banned again.
No I rated them a two because I they were supporting dhinmis verbal abuse. I never said I rated them a two because they were “conservative”. Document me saying that. I said I rated them a two because the post was marginal.
I supported raimondo’s blog, because I admire his antiwar stance. I don’t support his right wing libertarianism, and I don’t see how you can infere that I do. I actually denounced it in my post. See. I didn’t support his candidacy anywhere, and probably wouldn’t. So the rest of your post is just goofy, and a cheap smear. I am not all that scared of being banned here basically because booman dislikes dhinmi as much as I do, and he is obviously more progressive than kos. I hope more kossacks make their way here. I don’t think kos is worthy of their support, since his agenda is far more conservative than the vast majority of them.
Asking for a strategy for “success” is hardly an “obvious” attempt to bring the troops home. It asks for an increase in troop numbers and in no why “requires” that he bring them home. It merely asks that he does. She also sponsered with the certifyable war hawk Tom Lantos. A man who supported the war from the beginning, including its real agenda which was replacing Saddam with a dictator.
The three charges you have leveled at Stray may also be leveled at your friends, “The Next Cabalists.”
1. They support a known extremist:
Pick one: Sharon, Lieberman, the extremist Likud party
I think you were responding to Hope’s post?
Why, yes Stray, yes I was.
I have disagreed with him all the time. Why can I keep things civil with him, and she can’t?
Now, let me ask you this, because you have no proof of anything you say:
Keep in mind that if it was someone who equated Sharon with the Nazis or mocked Jewish religious customs, then that person deserved to be troll-rated. All such remarks do is create conflict.
For my part, I have downrated a person for calling Palestinian people “animals” before; I did not have to do it again.
The article you cite was written in 2002. Much may have changed since then, including Lantos’ attitudes. If he has decided that we have no business being there, then that is a welcome change of attitude on his part, as much as I dislike what he said in the 2002 article.
I am happy to see that you don’t support Raimondo uncritically and can make distinctions between his antiwar stances and his other stances. I thought you were; I am happy to stand corrected.
I agree with what Booman said about NARAL not being an extension of the Democratic Party. A special interest group has different objectives than a Democratic Party group. Their job is to pressure people of all parties to follow their objectives.
But on the other hand, Chafee, who NARAL endorsed, voted for the current leadership, who would gut Roe. So, I can see both sides of the issue. You can think Kos is wrong on this issue all you want. You can think he and DHinMI went over-the-top if you want; I have no quarrel with that.
What I do have a problem with is that it does not follow that Kos is therefore a lockstep member of the DLC, like you say. What Booman said about the need for NARAL to maintain credibility applies to you as well. You need to keep your facts straight about people if you want to be credible either here or elsewhere.
I never said he was a member of the dlc. I said NDN and Kos doesn’t depart from the dlc formula to be considered progressive or worthy of the time of progressives.
I don’t believe Lantos has changed. I believe he really wants success in Iraq. Anyway this thread is long past due, and have better things to do than deal with straw man arguments from Kos apologists.
I’m not going to argue with you anymore. I’m not denying that we still have a major problem with spineless Democrats; I thought your recent MyDD diary on Biden was right on.
All I’m asking is that when we criticize other people that we keep our facts straight. I correct people all the time, and I expect people to correct me if I make a mistake.
We have different notions of facts. Kos ticks alot of constituants off. I happen not to be naral. I am fundamentally interested in the rights of the disabled, and low wage workers, particularly low wage women. I am more interested in child care than abortion. There are more women, disabled people, blacks and people who have to cope with issues like lack of health insurance here. Those issues often get front paged here where as on kos they tend to get ignored. They don’t even make the recommended lists. Kossacks are a different demographic, and so is kos. I have experienced marginalization in the Democratic party for along time. I don’t need to get it from a younger set of “Conservative” Dems. I would hate to see kos steer unsuspecting progressives toward another Kerry.
I have no problem with saying that NDN or DLC is too conservative and that NDN needs to relate to women better than they do. I don’t mean to imply that they are all good. But all I ask is that we judge each group individually and not lump Kos in with DLC, for instance. That is unhelpful and very divisive.
ban somemone and he does it, for no fucking reason other than pissing off dhinmi. I don’t like the guy. I have reason. I came hear to get away from them, and would like to see other blogs take his audience. I think he is insincere.
But I’m sorry you had such a bad experience with him, and as far as I’m concerned, that fight is over.
as far as you are concerned. I am concerned that other abused kossacks have a place to go.
But I don’t see how bringing up the fights of weeks ago will help you accomplish that objective.
as far as I am concerned, and yes if they know they are not alone in this experience that will definately help the cause of steering progressives away from his dead end.
What did Kos say that was so phony?
I have already told you. I don’t believe ndn is antidlc, and I pretty much proved it with my Lieberman links.
I don’t know. Probably things like “Lieberman is pro-Israel, not pro-Likud.”
What a crock.
If you expect to convince me that Kos hearts Lieberman and the DLC, then you need to provide me with some links.
I was speaking to your phony remark that Lieberman is not a Likudnik, but simply a supporter of Israel. An ardent supporter of settlements, like Lieberman, is a Likudnik anyway you slice it. That was an absolutely dishonest statement you made about Joe Lebensrauman.
I was suggesting that maybe Kos uses the same doublespeak…
I don’t know, I can’t stomach his pomposity any longer. I’m here for you, not Kos. Hopefully, Stray will come along with corroborative evidence.
I didn’t know that Lieberman was pro-settler as opposed to being pro-Israel, but since Dameocrat gave me the link proving it, I accept that.
So, we’ve established two things: Since I am open to correction, and she knows how to prove things, let her prove that Kos is pro-DLC.
NDN itself is prodlc. Anyone that has been around politics for more than ten years knows that, and since it still supports Lieberman it hasn’t rejected the politics of the dlc. Futhermore, kos’s behavior shows he is still a follower of the dlc. His marginalizing of progressives, with the next hurrah bloggers tells me much.
I am not trying to prove membership of the dlc. I am only trying to show ndn hasn’t rejected dlc politics and I have done it. If they don’t reject Lieberman they hardly deserve credit for being an alternative to the dlc and niether does kos.
Not surprised. What we are watching is a battle over who is in charge of the establishment Dems. All of the factions in this battle have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to portray themselves as grassroots outsiders. The only outsiders in this imbroglio are would-be insiders like Kos.
When the “just plain folks” line of shit fails, then they try the alarmist approach: if the Dems don’t win every possible vote, we’ll all end up in GOP ovens.
I call bullshit, and not just on Kos and his allies, but on the Democratic party as a whole, and all of their crap.
If liberals withhold their votes, the Democratic party falls. Period. The party doesn’t worry about that because they know too many people believe the GOP=Nazi scaremongering. Yes, the GOP does have some fascist elements, and yes, they probably would eventually take over given enough time and a lack of resistance, but it’s not going to happen in a single election cycle.
No more votes for conservative or “moderate” Dems. Send the message. Send it loud. Don’t be afraid to use democracy the way it was intended.
But it makes sense, Once the net was identified as a cash source it was probably inevitable that establishment dems would want to control it.
Thanks for the diary and thanks to all for the comments.
and lie …. For the record (and despite hysterical assertions to the contrary), I’m neutral in the Ohio primary.
Well the “assertions” weren’t that hysterical… and actually they were direct quotes
FEC REGULATIONS FOR BLOGS….*NOW ! ! ! *
to the FEC, or any federal regulations of the blogs. I find it amazing that you would want to sic a federal agency on the blogs.
Right now, to me, that is akin to wanting King George to regulate Thomas Paine’s pamphlets. Jesus.
Let’s regulate ourselves, as we are doing, with this discussion and dissent with each other, in a democratic fashion.
Let’s regulate ourselves, as we are doing, with this discussion and dissent with each other, in a democratic fashion.
This I agree with 1000000%, however, the reality is that the more powerful blogs are in the process to consolidate power to shut out dissenting voices.
Parker, start your own blog. If you speak the kind of truth that people need or want to hear, they will come, as the movie suggested.
Please, goddamit please, don’t encourage federal involvement with the blogs. That is precisely the opening they are looking for to come in and take away our last free voice.
Write about the jerks, Kos, whoever, expose them. Expose the party. Electoral politics is over-hyped, in my view, as an instrument of change.
I can’t say I’m in favor of government regulation of blogs, per se, but I do see a problem with lack of transparency. I don’t care if someone is being paid by a company or political organization to blog. I don’t care if they are being paid to push a certain perspective.
I do care if it’s not disclosed. I can enjoy Wonkette even though it’s a corporate-owned blog. I don’t know if I could enjoy it if they were not forthright about it, and we only had rumors to go by. It would just be too … sneaky.
So I posted a disclosure on mediagirl.org. Perhaps others will follow suit.
Transparency is the answer. There’s no preventing people from lying about it, but at least some disclosure statements would be a start. (And statements made 2 years ago probably should be updated, yes?)
every enterprise that serves mass markets becomes corporate, because individuals can’t be efficient or productive enough to compete with corporations for anything except niche markets.
So if anyone is thinking about blogs making the world into a democracy, the precedents aren’t encouraging even though at this instant many of us can’t see exactly how the blogosphere could be bought up and Clearchannelled.
Simple truth:
These boys are all competing to become the Democrat Dobson of the “netroots”
And just like voting for bad Dems because there is a small upside, visiting their blogs and pumping up their pagecounts only makes them more powerful.
We stand up for our beliefs, or we sell out. The rest is just excuses.
Fuck ’em. Fuck those corporate whores !!!
We need to petition Boo to make this site a new, or third, or people’s party site.
The Democratic Party is dead.
Hi Parker, nice to see you in new digs. I got the note of your dismisal in the mail today, oh well. btw, that offer still stands at refunding you that generous $100 for the servers and design (it’ll be up within a couple of weeks, Kyle willing).
How nice of you to offer to refund the money. Not sure why it’d take you a couple of weeks to get around to it, but eh.
As for your cute nice to see you in new digs remark, perhaps you’re unfamiliar with how scoop software works? After you read the directions, perhaps you can determine how long Parker has been here, as compared to yourself (this being your second comment here). While the “digs” may be new to you, they are certainly not to Parker.
Or maybe that was just poor sentence structure on your part, to go along with “dismisal” (sic).
Anyhow, welcome to Booman Tribune. Don’t feel compelled to stay. I’m not sure you can handle the rules. But this was only your second comment. Perhaps you can learn.
this diary is filled with accusations about Jerome. He has a right to defend himself, and he has been a member here since the day BooTrib opened. He has his own blog. I read MyDD several times a week, and yet I have rarely commented there.
If the rules say to be respectful, that applies to you as well as everyone else.
Given the level of hostility for Jerome in this diary and the links provided in this diary, I think he has the right to be somewhat upset by it. Yet, he offered to refund Parker’s money.
Take it easy.
Gloating about one’s dismissal is not respectful (“new digs”) Jerome would do better to factually rebut the accusations leveled at him.
Bingo! Armstrong’s “defense” has amounted to little more than a glib accusation (with no data to back it up) in one post and a patronizingly snark-laden reply in another post. I’ll give the dude some credit I suppose for being slightly more civil here than I observed over at the Orange Blog yesterday – though that’s not really saying a whole lot. So it goes.
Jerome and Kos called Hackett supporters “Hackett fedayeen”, BooMan.
I’m not taking that lying down. It’s the goddamnest lowest thing either of them has ever done, and they’ve done some pretty low things in their time.
Surely you know what fedayeen are? Surely you know that Iraqi fedayeen have killed US soldiers and Marines? They tried to kill some of my men and me in Gulf War I. They would have tried to kill Recordkeeper’s husband when he was in Iraq if they’d had a chance. To call a combat veteran of Iraq War I or II a “fedayeen” is…well, I simply cannot let that go.
I don’t give Jerome Armstrong any respect. Not now, not ever. He and Moulitsa have forfeited their right to be treated decently.
And with but his second remark ever posted here, Jerome comes dragging his fight in from Kos–not content to kick Parker out of MyDD, not content to insult combat veterans and their fallen comrades on DKos, he must now come here on BooTrib–and we are expect to suffer this fool gladly?
Not I, sir. Not I. You ask too much of me.
If Armstrong or Kos come to this blog, BooMan, I refuse to accord them with even the basic courtesy. I’m sorry if you have a problem with that, as I respect you, but to treat them as if they’ve not spit on the graves of the killed and wounded soldiers? No, that I cannot do. That I will not do.
Armstrong is a coward. Let him answer Parker’s accusations with facts. You say Armstrong has a right to defend himself. He’s not even tried. He’s so arrogant he thinks he doesn’t even have to try. And yet you chide Yaright for being mildly disrespectful to a man who has been monumentally disrespectful to Parker? You are basically a decent person, BooMan, but this time you have not done the right thing.
You know the rules. Disrespect people all you want at their sites. You can’t do it here, and you know that.
If they sparked some trigger with you over using the word fedayeed, that’s your problem. Maybe someone else thinks it’s racist to use Abu Gonzales, or TaliBaptists.
Calm down, or take it over to MyDD and dKos.
Jerome Armstrong is free to come in here and insult Parker, though.
Special rules for special people, eh, BooMan?
Good luck with your blog. Nice lot of friends you’ve got there–Jerome Armstrong, Armando, Markos Moulitsa. Upstanding citizens one and all.
Good luck with your blog.
That’s uncalled for.
This is getting out of hand.
I have little opinion about MyDD or Jerome since I’ve rarely visited there. I think Daily Kos has gone horribly wrong and that Markos is a horrific spokesperson of the left.
But BooMan is trying to keep things civil as they usually are around here, and to enforce our community’s rules. Jerome slipped in some snark there, and was piled on by Parker and others. Not without justification.
But turning your guns on BooMan is nutty. Stop it.
You want us to stop turning our guns on Booman? Fine.
Then tell Booman to stop turning his guns on us. As Shadowtheif said, the policy seems to be that Armstrong, Armando, and kos are free to come here and insult people all they want. And we’re not allowed to fire back, we’re not allowed to supertroll them, and we’re not allowed to complain.
That’s not what I saw happening.
I see Armstrong registered here recently, fired off a childish comment, and then quit the blogosphere. I judge people by actions, and this Jerome Armstrong is now officially a Gigantic Loser. Armando’s come here a few times and acted like the asshole he is, and was rightly pilloried for it. Markos I haven’t seen here, but I don’t see everything of course, and I’d be glad to tell him what I think of him, without being a prick of course.
Where was it said not to trollrate certain people? I thought Jerome’s snark was well worth a 1 or 0.
I’m not seeing the special treatment, but I allow I’m likely to have missed something. I just want conversation to become productive again, and it didn’t appear to me you or Parker were leading it in that direction, so I thought I could step in and help defuse it. Chalk it up to my naivete.
I’m done wasting keystrokes on this, but I hope you understand I’m just as concerned about corporate influence and the false liberalism of some left-leaning blogs as you are. Also that I value voices like yours and Parker’s immensely, and if BMT were to become a place where they could not be heard, I would not be here.
By Boo’s example. He thought Jerome’s snark was not worthy of rating, while the well-deserved reply by Shadowtheif was worthy of a 0..
Well, I’m offended by it. I’m offended that they would attach the term to the candidacy of a US Marine who may very well have faced the fedayeen in combat, and certainly lost brothers in arms to them. I’m offended by the use of such callous condescension to characterize people who dare support said Marine as a candidate. I left DK because I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to add content and page views to a site that had such contempt for its membership. On the few occasions that I’ve looked back, I’ve been horrified by how much more contemptuous it’s become. I’ve never been a MyDD reader, but after what I’ve seen here, I’m quite sure I never will be. I think this is fucking tragic. I think it’s tragic that as we are watching the wheels come off the Bush Administration, the Democratic Party is still largely supine, and the netroots are falling into the same pattern of elitism and contempt for the “little people” that has spelled the doom of our entire political system. Tragic.
for what it is worth, I cannot find any references to the phrase ‘Hackett fedeyeen’ from Markos or Jerome. I’ve looked.
So, first we should be careful that this accusation is accurate.
And while I understand why that phrase would anger some people, I think it is meant innocently enough.
I often refer to a Democratic ‘insurgency’ and I mean no harm by it.
First verify it was even said before you take offense.
Actually, there’s at least one reference from Markos that I found from just a very cursor search:
Emphasis added.
okay. so at least he said it.
Wow, that was quick. I wonder how your cursory search differed from Boo’s?
That [Hackett Feyadeen] is a morally repugnant characterization of fellow Democrats. Did Kos borrow that phrase from Murdoch’s talking points? WTF?
first. Quite the common slam at Dkos in 2003.
They wasted no time, we were barely in Baghdad.
It is interesting how very poisonous the blogs are.. what shape will they be in by the GE 2008. When the money is REALLY BIG.
Apparently more and more bloggers share in ad revenue at sites… that too should be revealed whereever it occurs. If positions are paid, and it comes off political ads, it should be known.
The Hackett Brown poison is just the beginning. To my eyes, I sense a play outta DC. I wonder who the blogger boyz serve, it may be they do not serve even the putative client or ad buyer or the candidate they support or pretend to support or LOL not support..
They may serve Dem entities in DC. Yes that starts to make some sense to m e…
Very patriarchal system going on… LOL. Fun to watch…
might be mispelling it. “Fedayeen”
Here’s one place its used
But I mean the term innocently enough. When I say “Nazi war criminal”, I just mean that he’s really, really good at organising.
Hey, no harm, no foul, right?
Hey Boo? That’s a stupid rule. Now anyone banned from, say, Daily Kos can’t raise the issue of kos’s increasingly freeper-ish banning policy anywhere. Because they can’t post about it there, so they can’t post about it here. Is that what you wanted, or did you just not realize what “ban” means?
Well, it’s stupid unless your objective is to muzzle discussion of the increasingly compromised nature of the administration of the Big Blogs. That’s the only possible logic I can see for that rule.
he has the right to be somewhat upset by it.
Truth hurts…
Armstrong, you are a fucking prick and a coward.
You are a stench in the nostrils of every decent man.
Yes, it’s me, one of the “Hackett fedayeen”.
Scuttle back to your masters and lick their boots, Armstrong–go cash your fat pay cheque and go to sleep at nights knowing that you are nothing but the basest of creatures.
I would say you’d sold your soul for thirty thousand pieces of gold, but that would imply there was something you had to sell.