(note: glo is "scribe) Since the shakeup over at Boo, (and my royal hissy fit here!) I decided it was time to look for the light at the end on my OWN tunnel for a change, and I think I have found it. (in terms of where it works out best for me to spend my online time and energy, I mean). Since it does speak to larger "meta issues" going on now, I thought I'd share the outcome with you.
You''ll notice my name back on the contributer list here and you will also find me very involved over at ECFS . What you will NOT see me doing, ever again, is considering myself to be a "member" of ANY political blog "community", that is operated on a "top down management model". (Or any other online "community" operated and run by a single "owner".)
I will visit these blogs as I care to, comment as I care to, maybe even contribute something now and then, but I will not be joining any of these "communities." or considering any of them any kind of online "home base" . I really should have known better to ever fall into that trap again.
I take the concept of "community" (or "teamwork" , or "democracy" for that matter) seriously. I don't consent to join anything that I am not willing to invest in. This means freely contributing whatever I have to offer, and getting to really know and care about the other members, because this is my concept of what a "community" is. In return I get a sense of comfort and familiarity and "belonging" as a part of a group of other human beings..that I call a sense of "community". (Sort of like "Cheers": a place where everybody knows your name)
I think I have finally completed a long long lesson. For me, there never will be no more joining any top down, pyramid shaped organization. For several reasons:
1) I AWAYS end up breaking too many of the unwritten, unspoken rules and norms of "acceptable behavior or thought" (that all groups with a top down structure form )
2) I cannot tolerate having subtle yet real limits placed on what I can or cannot say or believe, without getting attacked or "shunned".
3) I cannot witness good people I care about tearing out each others throats out and nobody in charge doing anything about it, not in silence anyway.
4) I will NOT be pressured into taking sides between "insiders and outsiders" and being expected to support those in charge,when I do not agree with them, as the dues I must pay for continued acceptance by the "core community"who is loyal to the owner.
5) And when I am fully "invested" in a top down group, and it falls apart, I tend to get sucked in emotionally, which wreaks havoc with me ,stresswise and raises hell with my objectivity and clarity.
These are all dynamics I have experienced for a lifetime, on the job, in social groups, literally everwhere people organize themselves into groups based on a top down power based model, and I am DONE, hear me?! I am DONE with this! FUCK IT!
I LIKE being an "Other"! I was born with this non conformist nature, and I embrace it fully . At the same time, I am not a an "island", and I do enjoy and need the company of others and that elusive sense of "community", when I can find some of it.
Mo betta is NOT a top down power structured blog. There are several here with admin prvildges and from what I can see, whatever "power" that grants, is flowing in a circular fashion. The same at ECFS. Everyone posting there is in an admin, and so far, it is forming itself into a totally collaborative, circular shape, and flow.
So these are the places where I intend to hang out now, and contribute, for as long as they remain viable in a circular organizational structure. I have long been absolutely fascinated by wondering just what we could do together, if not forced to deal with the inevitable dysfunctions that will always arise in groups operating within a top down, power-over model.
(And I do not find it a surprise at all to find all my most favorite online "Others"right here, and also at ECFS! )
Oh. And for any drop in visitors here, who have been told that we are all bunch of sickos who have no lives at all and spend all our time "blog wrecking" just for the hell of it, you might want to stick around long enough to read all of what's here, not just the carefully selected chum you may have been hand fed.
(And to ductape, wherever you are: I know, I know, it took me awhile to really "get it", fully, but better late than never, huh? Thank you, my dear friend.)
Monday, February 26, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
New ecfs site...
We are finally on our new server and URL for "Everybody Comes From Somewhere". Update your bookmarks appropriately! ;)
Threaded comments, forum, lots of goodness and whatever you want it to be... so if you didn't get an email with your new account info, email me... spiderleafATgmailDOTcom... and if you did, stop on by and poke around!
~ spider
Threaded comments, forum, lots of goodness and whatever you want it to be... so if you didn't get an email with your new account info, email me... spiderleafATgmailDOTcom... and if you did, stop on by and poke around!
~ spider
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Handling the Problem of Dissident Bloggers in Gated Community Blogs
One of the noticeable features of American suburbia over the last couple decades is the increased tendency for the upper middle class to barricade themselves in gated communities. There are of course numerous reasons why one might choose to live in such a set-up, including of course the perception of safety as well as the perception of communing among like-minded neighbors free from the undesirable riff-raff that pollute the inner cities and whatnot. I've never of course actually lived in one of these neighborhoods, nor are there any prospects of me ever doing so (not that I lose any sleep over it, mind you). I have however visited a few of them, and they are indeed strange places. The houses are uniformly large (I've heard the term McMansions used to describe them) and similar in appearance. Yards of course are neatly trimmed. The air of similarity pervades the environment. Naturally, of course, there is a gate blocking one's entrance to these places and one must seek permission in order to be buzzed in. It's a bit easier to get out than to get in, perhaps not too surprisingly. Given that at the time that I was invited in to such communities by punks and goth wannabes who just happened to have well-off parental units, I am sure that my arrival would coincide with a depreciation in property values. The car I drove that had peace sign and Crucifucks stickers on it was probably a clue that I was one of the riff-raff that the neighbors had tried to escape.
With that long-winded introduction you might now ask me what any of this has to do with dissident bloggers. Have patience. We will make our way to this weighty topic momentarily. The gated communities are ultimately about having the right appearance, the right car, the right job, the right values. Deviations are simply not to be tolerated - as I am sure any upstanding member of the various neighborhood associations governing these communities will tell you. The pressure to conform has to be enormous. But again, keep in mind that we are dealing with upper-middle class America, here, which really hasn't evolved much since the days of Father Knows Best. The main differences are the spiffy high-tech gadgets, the bling, the Hummer in every driveway, etc. (in other words, mere window dressing).
To a degree, the phenomenon of "community blogging" is itself a middle-to-upper-middle-class endeavor (I told you I was going somewhere with this). Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with this state of affairs per se, but it does lead to some characteristics of these blogging communities which one must take care to notice lest one be subject to public scorn and ridicule. One must understand for instance that taking up space in a gated community blog is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, and that the moderators (who act as the internet equivalent of a neighborhood association) ultimately get to decide on who is privileged and who is not. There are some for whom the gate is not supposed to open. So it goes. Nothing is ever one hundred percent fool-proof of course, and just as one cannot always choose one's neighbors (or the guests of said neighbors), one cannot always choose one's blog members. Needless to say, when saddled with embarrassing neighbors, the association must take action - especially if the other neighbors have failed to do so. That pressure to conform is enormous, suffice it to say, and any good gated community has ample tools at its disposal.
In the gated community blogs, this pressure to conform usually takes on at least a couple forms: one is the in the form of using guilt and shame as a tactic to stifle nonconformist discourse. Those using this particular tactic can proceed in at least two ways. They could try to reminisce about "the good old days" when we "were all on the same side" and lament the current state of dialogue. Another weapon is to take on the role of the victim who has been "attacked" by the hordes of "savage" leftists. The tactic is most effective if delivered with a sufficiently stern motherly or fatherly voice. Sometimes the unruly member might fall for it, and clam up. Others, smelling the stench of manipulation, the embarrassing guests will continue as before, with maybe a flamewar or two added for good effect.
Another tactic I call "you're in danger of not being cool." Let's say the dissident blogger quotes a source considered taboo by the "Liberal Blogging Neighborhood Association." One can play the tactic thusly: "if you're quoting Justin Raimondo (a libertarian), you're just a step away from completing the transition to being a David Horowitz clone." Naturally, no self-respecting leftist blogger would wish to associate with neocon slime such as Horowitz, which is why the tactic can be effective in achieving sufficient conformity in order for the community to keep up appearances of respectability. Actually it's no different than the old junior high school trick of saying "if you keep doing x, you'll end up just like the weird dude who eats his boogers during pep rallies." Again, this tactic is only effective to the extent that the targets don't perceive that they're being manipulated (in which case, all bets are off, except for the endless flame wars that will continue for days on end).
If none of that works, there's always raw coercion. Some respectable member of the community (perhaps even a member of the neighborhood association) might simply go off threatening to clock the offending dissident blogger or even go so far as to threaten the dissident with the use of firearms. That particular tactic smells of desperation, and other than making one question the mental state of those issuing such threats, it's usually fairly safe to assume that the person making the threat will never carry it out. Ultimately, the threatener ends up looking stupid, losing respectability in the process, and the dissident bloggers go merrily about their business (don't forget the flame war!).
Somewhat more effective might be the threat of banishing the dissident bloggers from the neighborhood. To the extent that we humans are social animals who thrive on interaction and who become stressed out by excessive isolation, that threat can carry some substance up to a point. The weakness of that threat is that the internets allow for the formation of multiple communities that can subsequently become homes for wayward dissident bloggers, and some of those communities even exist sans the usual gates and guards and such. The gatekeepers using this tactic should also take care to avoid playing favorites, as leftist bloggers (both dissident and the more "respectable" alike) tend to be especially sensitive to injustices and what should have been a quiet gathering at the country club can quickly turn into a crowd at a pro wrestling match.
Such are the trials and tribulations of the blogging community gatekeepers, who find themselves having to deal with the community they have rather than the one that they wished for. There is another tactic that would be well worthy of consideration, and is one that I humbly offer as preferable: try listening to the dissident bloggers rather than view them as those weird aunts or uncles who must be kept hidden in order to keep up those appearances of perfect normality in blogtopia's Wysteria Lane. Doing so, means giving up the pretense of gated community perfection, and risks the potential for touchy and "embarrassing" topics to be raised (and dare I say it, even front-paged). The benefits though include added potential to learn and to perhaps even change a few opinions here and there (on all sides). Besides, a neighborhood in which all the houses look the same gets boring - wouldn't you much rather have a community with some color to it?
Credit where credit is due: blogtopia was coined by skippy; the term "gated community blogs" was coined by Ductape Fatwa.
With that long-winded introduction you might now ask me what any of this has to do with dissident bloggers. Have patience. We will make our way to this weighty topic momentarily. The gated communities are ultimately about having the right appearance, the right car, the right job, the right values. Deviations are simply not to be tolerated - as I am sure any upstanding member of the various neighborhood associations governing these communities will tell you. The pressure to conform has to be enormous. But again, keep in mind that we are dealing with upper-middle class America, here, which really hasn't evolved much since the days of Father Knows Best. The main differences are the spiffy high-tech gadgets, the bling, the Hummer in every driveway, etc. (in other words, mere window dressing).
To a degree, the phenomenon of "community blogging" is itself a middle-to-upper-middle-class endeavor (I told you I was going somewhere with this). Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with this state of affairs per se, but it does lead to some characteristics of these blogging communities which one must take care to notice lest one be subject to public scorn and ridicule. One must understand for instance that taking up space in a gated community blog is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, and that the moderators (who act as the internet equivalent of a neighborhood association) ultimately get to decide on who is privileged and who is not. There are some for whom the gate is not supposed to open. So it goes. Nothing is ever one hundred percent fool-proof of course, and just as one cannot always choose one's neighbors (or the guests of said neighbors), one cannot always choose one's blog members. Needless to say, when saddled with embarrassing neighbors, the association must take action - especially if the other neighbors have failed to do so. That pressure to conform is enormous, suffice it to say, and any good gated community has ample tools at its disposal.
In the gated community blogs, this pressure to conform usually takes on at least a couple forms: one is the in the form of using guilt and shame as a tactic to stifle nonconformist discourse. Those using this particular tactic can proceed in at least two ways. They could try to reminisce about "the good old days" when we "were all on the same side" and lament the current state of dialogue. Another weapon is to take on the role of the victim who has been "attacked" by the hordes of "savage" leftists. The tactic is most effective if delivered with a sufficiently stern motherly or fatherly voice. Sometimes the unruly member might fall for it, and clam up. Others, smelling the stench of manipulation, the embarrassing guests will continue as before, with maybe a flamewar or two added for good effect.
Another tactic I call "you're in danger of not being cool." Let's say the dissident blogger quotes a source considered taboo by the "Liberal Blogging Neighborhood Association." One can play the tactic thusly: "if you're quoting Justin Raimondo (a libertarian), you're just a step away from completing the transition to being a David Horowitz clone." Naturally, no self-respecting leftist blogger would wish to associate with neocon slime such as Horowitz, which is why the tactic can be effective in achieving sufficient conformity in order for the community to keep up appearances of respectability. Actually it's no different than the old junior high school trick of saying "if you keep doing x, you'll end up just like the weird dude who eats his boogers during pep rallies." Again, this tactic is only effective to the extent that the targets don't perceive that they're being manipulated (in which case, all bets are off, except for the endless flame wars that will continue for days on end).
If none of that works, there's always raw coercion. Some respectable member of the community (perhaps even a member of the neighborhood association) might simply go off threatening to clock the offending dissident blogger or even go so far as to threaten the dissident with the use of firearms. That particular tactic smells of desperation, and other than making one question the mental state of those issuing such threats, it's usually fairly safe to assume that the person making the threat will never carry it out. Ultimately, the threatener ends up looking stupid, losing respectability in the process, and the dissident bloggers go merrily about their business (don't forget the flame war!).
Somewhat more effective might be the threat of banishing the dissident bloggers from the neighborhood. To the extent that we humans are social animals who thrive on interaction and who become stressed out by excessive isolation, that threat can carry some substance up to a point. The weakness of that threat is that the internets allow for the formation of multiple communities that can subsequently become homes for wayward dissident bloggers, and some of those communities even exist sans the usual gates and guards and such. The gatekeepers using this tactic should also take care to avoid playing favorites, as leftist bloggers (both dissident and the more "respectable" alike) tend to be especially sensitive to injustices and what should have been a quiet gathering at the country club can quickly turn into a crowd at a pro wrestling match.
Such are the trials and tribulations of the blogging community gatekeepers, who find themselves having to deal with the community they have rather than the one that they wished for. There is another tactic that would be well worthy of consideration, and is one that I humbly offer as preferable: try listening to the dissident bloggers rather than view them as those weird aunts or uncles who must be kept hidden in order to keep up those appearances of perfect normality in blogtopia's Wysteria Lane. Doing so, means giving up the pretense of gated community perfection, and risks the potential for touchy and "embarrassing" topics to be raised (and dare I say it, even front-paged). The benefits though include added potential to learn and to perhaps even change a few opinions here and there (on all sides). Besides, a neighborhood in which all the houses look the same gets boring - wouldn't you much rather have a community with some color to it?
Credit where credit is due: blogtopia was coined by skippy; the term "gated community blogs" was coined by Ductape Fatwa.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Divisions of the Left
In the previous thread, Nanette posted a comment in response to this post by Maryscott O'Connor at My Left Wing.
I think Nanette's comment serves as a good jumping off point for the broader conversation about the divisions in the left-wing blogosphere and it expands on the point that many people want to aim for more than just winning elections for Democrats, which I had tried to address in this post.
Here's her reply to Maryscott:
Some of us have had long discussions about the role of "The Others" in relation to the big box blogs and the wider political scene in general while trying to address the huge topic of American exceptionalism as well - a topic that affects domestic and foreign policy attitudes. Sometimes, they're not easy conversations to have but, imho, they are certainly necessary if we are going to try to work with each other. You have to recognize the divisions before you can deal with them and then it's a matter of figuring out what to do about them in a way that embraces the diversity of opinions, needs and goals. An age old challenge, to be sure, but one that the left-wing blogosphere needs to keep talking about in order to move forward.
I think Nanette's comment serves as a good jumping off point for the broader conversation about the divisions in the left-wing blogosphere and it expands on the point that many people want to aim for more than just winning elections for Democrats, which I had tried to address in this post.
Here's her reply to Maryscott:
Maryscott, while we all may be headed in the same general direction, I think people have, over time, come to the conclusion that no, we are not all on the same side. And we don't all have the same destination in mind.
(Some) women realized that at kos a couple of years ago and on into the present. Non mainstream white people learned that about kos, booman, mydd and even your site (all of which poll (or would, if they were taken at bootrib and mlw) at 98% or more white, and the rest various "other". Why do you think that is?
Leftists, those who don't believe in the political system as is... and don't believe in supporting it staying the way it is (which is basically what the BBB's are doing), also have found sometimes that their "home community" just really... isn't.
There is a huge gulf between those that want a tweak... and those that feel that what is really needed is a change. Most of the kos and kos satellite blogs - bootrib, fdl, mydd, mlw to a lesser extent, etc - and participants are tweakers. They've convinced themselves (especially the mydd'ers... good god) that, yes, they really can be THE progressive movement, even if their ranks are made up of primarily comfortably well off white males. Tweakers. A mile wide and an inch deep... because, as I mentioned to Stoller, when whatever burr is in their hide (war in iraq, Bush in white house, etc) is removed, the slightly discomforted will be comfortable again and go on with their lives.
I saw in your mlw post of this that you have a photo of a little kid and 'no war with Iran' or something... close to the text of "something that really matters" or something like that. I am anti-war. Not only anti this war, but anti all wars. HOWEVER... I will not coalesce with people and groups around being "anti-war" - well, not primarily.
I coalition with people who are pro social justice, pro environmental justice, pro human rights, pro human dignity, pro anti-racism, pro anti-imperialism and exceptionalism, and things such as this... with the knowledge that being pro these things necessitates also being anti war, and working to find and build solutions and alternatives. Changers.
The reverse isn't true, however... you can be as anti *this* or the next war as you like, and still not give a hoot about any of that other stuff. That's one place where many divisions arise, in my opinion.
Anyway, I think the divisions are perfectly fine. I believe the party operative blogs will be one vehicle (or group of vehicles) heading in one direction, following the routes they wish to go, making inroads in the party and so on and that those who have other views or goals will move in directions that they feel they need to go. And that's okay.
The rancor will fade, it always does - none should consider themselves immune to criticism however, as some seem to.
Some of us have had long discussions about the role of "The Others" in relation to the big box blogs and the wider political scene in general while trying to address the huge topic of American exceptionalism as well - a topic that affects domestic and foreign policy attitudes. Sometimes, they're not easy conversations to have but, imho, they are certainly necessary if we are going to try to work with each other. You have to recognize the divisions before you can deal with them and then it's a matter of figuring out what to do about them in a way that embraces the diversity of opinions, needs and goals. An age old challenge, to be sure, but one that the left-wing blogosphere needs to keep talking about in order to move forward.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Sick
by soj on Sat Feb 17th, 2007 at 10:20:31 PM EST
The level of hostile paranoia in that particular response to one of Booman's front-page screeds is indeed something to behold. I have just enough paraprofessional experience in the helping professions to recognize soj's ravings for what they are: the work of someone who at this moment in time is profoundly disturbed (I'll refrain from armchair diagnoses for what I think are obvious reasons). I would say that any threat of physical violence, which is essentially what this alleged "pacifist" has done, should not be excused. Whether or not it will over at the frogpond remains to be seen.
Stuck
When Atrios kicked off Blogroll Amnesty Day earlier this month, I doubt he had any idea about the blowback that would result when kos at Daily Kos decided to join him. The reaction to the culling of kos' blogroll was fast and at times furious throughout the blogosphere. skippy described the repercussions on site rankings. Renee in Ohio started a protest blog. Maryscott O'Connor tore a strip off of kos' hide. And that was just the beginning.
Since that time there has been a lot of analysis throughout the blogosphere about the much broader issue of the role of "big box blogs" (BBB) like Daily Kos as they relate to being privately-owned businesses whose main goal is simply "winning" elections.
I won't rehash all of those debates. I just thought I'd toss in my opinion about what's going on and how it relates to the position the Democrats and their supporters find themselves in now.
Anyone who's followed the American political scene on the BBBs the past few years knows the sheer agony, desperation and anger expressed about how Bushco has coopted democracy, justice and civil and human rights. All of those emotions were aimed at one thing: regaining Democratic control of congress last year. When that did happen (and it was quite a delicate win until it was finally announced that Jim Webb's win just barely gave them the senate majority), the BBB members could finally breath a sigh of relief. And that's what it was. It wasn't a massive celebration. It was more of a serious "what will the Democratic congress do now" reaction.
So they waited and patiently watched as the Dems put their first 100 hours plan into action. The thread underlying the 2006 elections for those bloggers and commenters though that had coursed through the electorate at large was the opposition to the Iraq war and the possibility of impeachment. After Bush announced his so-called surge, the Dems knew they had to proceed cautiously, all the while being criticized every step of the way by the right for supposedly having no plan and being divided. Those divisions were also obvious on the left-wing blogs where members were (and still are) fighting amongst themselves over whether to bring the troops home ASAP or to go with a gradual withdrawal; whether to cut off funding or not. No one on those blogs, from what I could see, thought Bush's plan was anything but a badly misguided policy.
So, what does all of that have to do with the blogroll amnesty blowout and the general unruliness on some of those blogs lately? Well, I think it became very obvious to some that, contrary to what kos had been preaching, simply focusing on "winning" was not enough. The Dems won. Now what?
kos has begun retooling his blogroll by linking to state blogs that are focused on electoral politics - omitting those that are more ideological in nature. As he stated clearly in 2004:
As Renee in Ohio noted this week:
And there's the rub. This so-called movement, this "revolution" simply comes down to "crashing the gate" to get into the halls of power. It's about becoming a part of the status quo in the hopes of somehow coopting it. It's about shovelling even more money into the hands of politicians from people who would much nore effectively support their pet causes like human rights, justice or the environment by donating to NGOs. I think some people need to take a long, hard look at the fact that even if the blogosphere never existed, the Democrats still would have won in 2006 because the American people were absolutely fed up with the war. The big box blogs attribute far more power to their efforts than they deserve and their members are starting to notice that, for all of the sweat and toil they contribute by writing free content for those sites, the people who run them are gaining notoriety and incomes on their backs.
There's a taste for a real revolution on the BBBs. That is painfully obvious when a diary like this extolling the leaders of the 60s counterculture movements has over 1200 comments from Daily Kos site members - the vast majority of whom applaud the diarist, One Pissed Off Liberal aka OPOL. To those who have followed the genesis of OPOL's participation at dkos, the irony of this oustanding show of support for his latest piece shouldn't be missed. Until even last week, some of the more conservative members on the site were bound and determined to silence his voice there.
The reason for the turning of that tide, I believe, is that many more kossacks now acknowledge that the kos "progressive" revolution has mainly been a figment of their imaginations. Think about it: the 1939 Frank Capra movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington showed "people power" in action. Thousands of telegrams were sent to DC to oppose Senator Smith (James Stewart) who was trying to expose graft in congress while hundreds of boys in his home state took it upon themselves to print and deliver flyers to inform the public of what was really going on in DC in order to support him.
Today's supposedly new-fangled technopolitical revolution led by kos (although he doesn't like to consider himself a leader), which is accomplishing exactly the same thing as that movie yet is somehow now being rebranded as being "progressive", amounts to one of the quietest revolutions in history - the only noise one often hears is the clicking of keyboard keys as one sends yet another e-mail to their congressperson or a letter to the editor to express how they feel about an issue. More clicking is involved to ship off yet another $10 donation or to write yet another diary. At the same time, many of those quiet revolutionaries heap disdain on those who choose to participate in actual street protests because they're just too "inconvenient" or "unruly". The idea of civil disobedience is definitely out. That's not to take away from people who are politically engaged locally. However, they most likely would have arrived at that position even with the BBBs.
So, what we're seeing is a perfect storm of still strong emotions that wants Bushco brought under control by a congress whose leaders have said that impeachment is off the table as they try to find some constitutional way to end the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, many liberals (not the centrists or the so-called left leaning centrists) on these BBBs are starting to realize that being beholden to the private company of Daily Kos, whose owner seems to care more about his interests than those of the strong ideologically-based voices on his blog (and those he used to include on his blogroll), is just not getting them anywhere. And they're crying out for more than mere "winning" because it too often coopts their values and social agendas. They've finally realized that their needs are not being and will not be met by sticking with the status quo that those blogs have become and the banishment from the blogrolls might have been just the wake up call they needed to rise up and reclaim their true paths.
Simply, they refuse to be stuck. More than that, they refuse to be caught up in the spiral of silence that grows each time those blogs become more authoritarian and restrictive through the use of bannings and ratings that make their uncomfortable comments disappear. They refuse to be subjected to bullying and harassment. And they have zero tolerance for site owners who let their disruptive and offensive friends get away with behaviour that would get other people kicked off those sites in no time flat.
There's a sense that there has to be more out there and there definitely is. Herding those liberal cats into a place where they can be more free is, as always, easier said than done. But to stay and fight where you're clearly not wanted is to, as they said back in those old hippie days, sell out. And there's already been more than enough of that.
And that's my 2 cents on the issue.
Since that time there has been a lot of analysis throughout the blogosphere about the much broader issue of the role of "big box blogs" (BBB) like Daily Kos as they relate to being privately-owned businesses whose main goal is simply "winning" elections.
I won't rehash all of those debates. I just thought I'd toss in my opinion about what's going on and how it relates to the position the Democrats and their supporters find themselves in now.
Anyone who's followed the American political scene on the BBBs the past few years knows the sheer agony, desperation and anger expressed about how Bushco has coopted democracy, justice and civil and human rights. All of those emotions were aimed at one thing: regaining Democratic control of congress last year. When that did happen (and it was quite a delicate win until it was finally announced that Jim Webb's win just barely gave them the senate majority), the BBB members could finally breath a sigh of relief. And that's what it was. It wasn't a massive celebration. It was more of a serious "what will the Democratic congress do now" reaction.
So they waited and patiently watched as the Dems put their first 100 hours plan into action. The thread underlying the 2006 elections for those bloggers and commenters though that had coursed through the electorate at large was the opposition to the Iraq war and the possibility of impeachment. After Bush announced his so-called surge, the Dems knew they had to proceed cautiously, all the while being criticized every step of the way by the right for supposedly having no plan and being divided. Those divisions were also obvious on the left-wing blogs where members were (and still are) fighting amongst themselves over whether to bring the troops home ASAP or to go with a gradual withdrawal; whether to cut off funding or not. No one on those blogs, from what I could see, thought Bush's plan was anything but a badly misguided policy.
So, what does all of that have to do with the blogroll amnesty blowout and the general unruliness on some of those blogs lately? Well, I think it became very obvious to some that, contrary to what kos had been preaching, simply focusing on "winning" was not enough. The Dems won. Now what?
kos has begun retooling his blogroll by linking to state blogs that are focused on electoral politics - omitting those that are more ideological in nature. As he stated clearly in 2004:
This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable
As Renee in Ohio noted this week:
So, to recap. We have this guy who runs a blog and co-wrote a book, who in the process has aquired some celebrity. He uses phrases like "people powered" and "crashing the gate" as his *branding*. In the meantime, whether he has indeed "crashed a gate", or merely procured, for himself, a seat at the table, he's made it clear that he is not so interested in helping anyone else get in.
But even beyond that, he's in our f***ing way! He's become yet *another* moneyed arbiter of what news is "fit to print", as it were, and which voices will have a harder time being heard. And I *don't* make a living by blogging, but somehow squeeze it in around work and family, in what I ironically refer to as my "spare time"--because it's *that important* to me to make a positive difference.
And given the time and energy I, along with countless others, have invested in the project of taking our country back, I simply can't stand idly by while the tools of the revolution are co-opted by would-be kings.
And there's the rub. This so-called movement, this "revolution" simply comes down to "crashing the gate" to get into the halls of power. It's about becoming a part of the status quo in the hopes of somehow coopting it. It's about shovelling even more money into the hands of politicians from people who would much nore effectively support their pet causes like human rights, justice or the environment by donating to NGOs. I think some people need to take a long, hard look at the fact that even if the blogosphere never existed, the Democrats still would have won in 2006 because the American people were absolutely fed up with the war. The big box blogs attribute far more power to their efforts than they deserve and their members are starting to notice that, for all of the sweat and toil they contribute by writing free content for those sites, the people who run them are gaining notoriety and incomes on their backs.
There's a taste for a real revolution on the BBBs. That is painfully obvious when a diary like this extolling the leaders of the 60s counterculture movements has over 1200 comments from Daily Kos site members - the vast majority of whom applaud the diarist, One Pissed Off Liberal aka OPOL. To those who have followed the genesis of OPOL's participation at dkos, the irony of this oustanding show of support for his latest piece shouldn't be missed. Until even last week, some of the more conservative members on the site were bound and determined to silence his voice there.
The reason for the turning of that tide, I believe, is that many more kossacks now acknowledge that the kos "progressive" revolution has mainly been a figment of their imaginations. Think about it: the 1939 Frank Capra movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington showed "people power" in action. Thousands of telegrams were sent to DC to oppose Senator Smith (James Stewart) who was trying to expose graft in congress while hundreds of boys in his home state took it upon themselves to print and deliver flyers to inform the public of what was really going on in DC in order to support him.
Today's supposedly new-fangled technopolitical revolution led by kos (although he doesn't like to consider himself a leader), which is accomplishing exactly the same thing as that movie yet is somehow now being rebranded as being "progressive", amounts to one of the quietest revolutions in history - the only noise one often hears is the clicking of keyboard keys as one sends yet another e-mail to their congressperson or a letter to the editor to express how they feel about an issue. More clicking is involved to ship off yet another $10 donation or to write yet another diary. At the same time, many of those quiet revolutionaries heap disdain on those who choose to participate in actual street protests because they're just too "inconvenient" or "unruly". The idea of civil disobedience is definitely out. That's not to take away from people who are politically engaged locally. However, they most likely would have arrived at that position even with the BBBs.
So, what we're seeing is a perfect storm of still strong emotions that wants Bushco brought under control by a congress whose leaders have said that impeachment is off the table as they try to find some constitutional way to end the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, many liberals (not the centrists or the so-called left leaning centrists) on these BBBs are starting to realize that being beholden to the private company of Daily Kos, whose owner seems to care more about his interests than those of the strong ideologically-based voices on his blog (and those he used to include on his blogroll), is just not getting them anywhere. And they're crying out for more than mere "winning" because it too often coopts their values and social agendas. They've finally realized that their needs are not being and will not be met by sticking with the status quo that those blogs have become and the banishment from the blogrolls might have been just the wake up call they needed to rise up and reclaim their true paths.
Simply, they refuse to be stuck. More than that, they refuse to be caught up in the spiral of silence that grows each time those blogs become more authoritarian and restrictive through the use of bannings and ratings that make their uncomfortable comments disappear. They refuse to be subjected to bullying and harassment. And they have zero tolerance for site owners who let their disruptive and offensive friends get away with behaviour that would get other people kicked off those sites in no time flat.
There's a sense that there has to be more out there and there definitely is. Herding those liberal cats into a place where they can be more free is, as always, easier said than done. But to stay and fight where you're clearly not wanted is to, as they said back in those old hippie days, sell out. And there's already been more than enough of that.
And that's my 2 cents on the issue.
tale of two worlds - which Left are you on?
Just wanted to highlight this socio-linguistic diamond:
naaanh . . . that pungent leftie analysis comes from Martin, proprietor, Booman Tribune
(& note that it's total ad hominem in the piece)
how utterly clueless can one get?
Frustration with the quality and limits of discourse around racial topics, along with rampant uncritical jingoism (err, Exceptionalist Theory) of the so-called self-proclaimed 'liberal progressives', was one of the reasons I found myself responding to DtF's invite to participate here last August.
Sometime in early 1992 I was driving alone from Los Angeles to see some friends and celebrate Mardi Gras in New Orleans. I remember a particular stretch of Interstate 10 as I passed down from the mountains of Las Cruces into the river valley of El Paso. Off to my right, on the far side of the Rio Grande, stood Ciudad Juarez. It made for a sorry cityscape, with acres and acres of dilapidated housing. By contrast, El Paso was positively sparkling. I wondered to myself how two cities…two cities so far from anywhere, could be so different from each other. And it occurred to me that the answers lay in Mexico City and Washington DC…in the Constitution and rule of law on the one hand and incompetence and corruption on the other.& where does this vile pile of steaming racist jingosim come from? Lou Dobbs? Tom Lancredo? David Duke?
In our system of government nothing is more important than the separation of powers represented by the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judiciary.
If we lose those checks and balances it will only be a matter of time before we lose everything. There will be nothing to distinguish El Paso from Cuidad Juarez. Our country will lose its unique characteristics that have made it so successful.
naaanh . . . that pungent leftie analysis comes from Martin, proprietor, Booman Tribune
(& note that it's total ad hominem in the piece)
how utterly clueless can one get?
Frustration with the quality and limits of discourse around racial topics, along with rampant uncritical jingoism (err, Exceptionalist Theory) of the so-called self-proclaimed 'liberal progressives', was one of the reasons I found myself responding to DtF's invite to participate here last August.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Marcotte on 'Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign'
The gist of Amanda Marcotte's new article in Salon, 'Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign' relies heavily on her belief that she and Melissa McEwan of Shakepeare's Sister were harassed without end by the right-wing nutjobs because they were "young feminists" who had dared to express their opinions about religion, reproductive and gay rights.
That's not the way I saw it.
I think that the gender of the bloggers Edwards or any other Dem candidate chooses to hire for their campaigns is mainly irrelevant to the right-wing smear machine. They simply dug through the archives of Pandagon and found posts they could attack them for. I believe the same thing would have happened whether they were female or not. Hillary's campaign hired Peter Daou of the Daou Report as her blogger outreach person but the right-wing has nothing to go after in his archives that would match the quotes pulled from Pandagon. Ergo, Marcotte was an easy target and Daou has been left unscathed - not because he's a man, but because there was no ammo to use against him.
It makes me uncomfortable that this affair has been turned into a new feminist cause celebre. I'm certainly not ignorant to the fact that the right has repressive attitudes towards women in general but I don't think this case ought to be held up on that mantle as an attack on "young feminists" or feminists in general - not when it can be interpreted as a simple smear job based on the political opinions and writings of the bloggers involved, regardless of their gender.
In other meta news: skippy has a new post up about the scourge of "napoleon syndrome by proxy" that's raging through the blogosphere.
Mo meta? Add it in the comments. Thanks.
That's not the way I saw it.
I think that the gender of the bloggers Edwards or any other Dem candidate chooses to hire for their campaigns is mainly irrelevant to the right-wing smear machine. They simply dug through the archives of Pandagon and found posts they could attack them for. I believe the same thing would have happened whether they were female or not. Hillary's campaign hired Peter Daou of the Daou Report as her blogger outreach person but the right-wing has nothing to go after in his archives that would match the quotes pulled from Pandagon. Ergo, Marcotte was an easy target and Daou has been left unscathed - not because he's a man, but because there was no ammo to use against him.
It makes me uncomfortable that this affair has been turned into a new feminist cause celebre. I'm certainly not ignorant to the fact that the right has repressive attitudes towards women in general but I don't think this case ought to be held up on that mantle as an attack on "young feminists" or feminists in general - not when it can be interpreted as a simple smear job based on the political opinions and writings of the bloggers involved, regardless of their gender.
In other meta news: skippy has a new post up about the scourge of "napoleon syndrome by proxy" that's raging through the blogosphere.
Mo meta? Add it in the comments. Thanks.
Monday, February 12, 2007
New Old Meta
kos indulged himself and wrote a long meta post on Sunday nite to cheers from adoring fans. Others at My Left Wing were not among them, noticably liberalamerican and peeder, both of whom became the subjects of Armando's Big Tent Democrat's bloggy napalm campaign over at dkos. pyrrho came to their defence at MLW on Monday to try to stop the bleeding. (Good luck with that).
*****************
Amanda Marcotte has resigned from her blogging job on the Edwards campaign stating, "it [the Donohue wingnut scrutiny] was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign." I figure she should have realized that when she signed up for the job.
*****************
Meta communication.
*****************
Any other meta tidbits I've missed?
Update! pyrrho has been banned from Daily Kos. Wow is all I can say...
Update: Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister has also resigned from her position on the Edwards campaign.
People like BTD, whom I quote above, do have a reason to be loyal, they HAVE gotten something. But see, kos doesn't favor my type of politics. Kos wants to defund the Sierra Club. I'm not totally against his politics, but they don't align well enough with mine for me to get anything out of an organization which has no formal promise to let me vote, and also, no informal promise.
That doesn't mean I'm an enemy, and as we have the same positions on some issues, we are still, according to me, allies. But calls for loyalty to the BUSINESS of dailykos are asinine. They are illiberal.
Private businesses are authoritarian in nature... and my politics is NOT authoritarian. What is so fucking confusing to people about that?
PS: dkos is making enemies among progressives, if dkos doesn't want to face that, it will anyway.
*****************
Amanda Marcotte has resigned from her blogging job on the Edwards campaign stating, "it [the Donohue wingnut scrutiny] was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign." I figure she should have realized that when she signed up for the job.
*****************
Meta communication.
*****************
Any other meta tidbits I've missed?
Update! pyrrho has been banned from Daily Kos. Wow is all I can say...
Update: Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister has also resigned from her position on the Edwards campaign.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
No Meta
Whew. Let's just leave all that be and go help change the world and get to know each other at Everybody Comes From Somewhere.
See you there!
See you there!
Friday, February 09, 2007
Meta Meta Mo Meta
Is it cabin fever? Winter wankery? Post election win partum depression? Meta madness?No one's really sure.
What we do know, however, is that the blogosphere natives are extremely restless.
There was the recent meltdown at BooMan Tribune over the lack of enforcement of "the rule" (ie. "Don't be a prick".)
The huge blogapalooza blowout over kos's blogroll banishments. (skippy, MSOC, BooMan)
The all out attack against Adam the Soldier who was deemed by the powers that be at dkos to be a hoaxster without any proof but oops! it was all a mistake! Carry on and don't mind the fact that the big boyz just smeared the poor guy and banned him.
Whatever has caused all of this drama lately, one thing is certain: the trains have collided and all that's left to do now is to tend to the victims and clean up the wreckage.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Edwards and the Netroots
The news of the day is that John Edwards has refused to cave to right-wing nutbar pressure to fire bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen. Those unfamiliar with the dustup can read about it here.
Here's Edwards' statement on the matter:
Fine and dandy.
Edwards is being hailed by his fans in the left-wing blogosphere as a man with a spine today but there are definitely a few "howevers" attached to that praise. Some are disappointed that he didn't launch a full-fledged attack on the wingnuts who created this storm. Others want him to go after the MSM's shoddy reporting. Release the hounds!, they declare.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of all of this was statements from bloggers like Chris Bowers at MyDD, Martin at Booman Tribune and the crowd at Daily Kos that Edwards had better deal with this situation the way they thought he should or else he'd lose the support of the "netroots" - once again elevating the status of the "netroots" to near mythic proportions.
Did the netroots help get candidates elected? Yes. Although that sure didn't work in John Kerry's case, did it? Oh, but that wasn't the netroots fault. Kerry just didn't have that spine Edwards is supposedly displaying. Does the netroots raise money for candidates? Sure. But let's not forget about who really funds so-called democracy in the United States. Joe Netroot's $10 donation to his local candidiate is a nice gesture and makes him feel like he has power, but it's nothing compared to Corporate America's millions that are funneled into Washington every election cycle. So, while the netroots have some amount of people power, it is also very limited.
Democratic candidates won the last time around because Amercians were sick and tired of losing the Iraq war. I suspect the results would have been the same regardless of whether the netroots existed or not. Some factors are simply out of the netroots control. Remember the "macaca" moment that sunk George Allen and gave the win to Jim Webb? No netroots influence there - just serendipity.
Do the netroots have some influence? Sure. People who read blogs are often inspired to become active in their local races. They write about the issues to inform others. They raise a bit of money. Some netroots leaders end up being interviewed by the MSM. What is lacking, however, is the huge political machine that the right has been nurturing and employing for decades.
So the left's netroots movement may have actual power at some point in the future. As it stands now, however, it's still in its infancy and that power is very limited. That's why I thought those proclamations by bloggers like Chris Bowers were a bit laughable. John Edwards' campaign won't fail if he loses netroots support and for some bloggers to declare they'd abandon him over this issue seems to be a rather pompous display of overestimating their own power.
Frankly, what ought to be a major concern for so-called left-wing bloggers are the statements Edwards made at the Herzliya conference:
That's my bottom line: do you want John Edwards dragging your country into a war with Iran or not?
All of this netroots/blogger crisis stuff has just been a ridiculous diversion. You may want to grant Edwards a "spine" but you may regret that when it comes to how he might handle foreign affairs if he actually does become the president.
Update: The Catholic League has released its reponse to Edwards' decision. How pompous:
Reminder: Bill Donohue is The Catholic League's president and he can try to hide from his bigoted track record but it's well-documented.
What a hypocritical blowhard.
Here's Edwards' statement on the matter:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
Fine and dandy.
Edwards is being hailed by his fans in the left-wing blogosphere as a man with a spine today but there are definitely a few "howevers" attached to that praise. Some are disappointed that he didn't launch a full-fledged attack on the wingnuts who created this storm. Others want him to go after the MSM's shoddy reporting. Release the hounds!, they declare.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of all of this was statements from bloggers like Chris Bowers at MyDD, Martin at Booman Tribune and the crowd at Daily Kos that Edwards had better deal with this situation the way they thought he should or else he'd lose the support of the "netroots" - once again elevating the status of the "netroots" to near mythic proportions.
Did the netroots help get candidates elected? Yes. Although that sure didn't work in John Kerry's case, did it? Oh, but that wasn't the netroots fault. Kerry just didn't have that spine Edwards is supposedly displaying. Does the netroots raise money for candidates? Sure. But let's not forget about who really funds so-called democracy in the United States. Joe Netroot's $10 donation to his local candidiate is a nice gesture and makes him feel like he has power, but it's nothing compared to Corporate America's millions that are funneled into Washington every election cycle. So, while the netroots have some amount of people power, it is also very limited.
Democratic candidates won the last time around because Amercians were sick and tired of losing the Iraq war. I suspect the results would have been the same regardless of whether the netroots existed or not. Some factors are simply out of the netroots control. Remember the "macaca" moment that sunk George Allen and gave the win to Jim Webb? No netroots influence there - just serendipity.
Do the netroots have some influence? Sure. People who read blogs are often inspired to become active in their local races. They write about the issues to inform others. They raise a bit of money. Some netroots leaders end up being interviewed by the MSM. What is lacking, however, is the huge political machine that the right has been nurturing and employing for decades.
So the left's netroots movement may have actual power at some point in the future. As it stands now, however, it's still in its infancy and that power is very limited. That's why I thought those proclamations by bloggers like Chris Bowers were a bit laughable. John Edwards' campaign won't fail if he loses netroots support and for some bloggers to declare they'd abandon him over this issue seems to be a rather pompous display of overestimating their own power.
Frankly, what ought to be a major concern for so-called left-wing bloggers are the statements Edwards made at the Herzliya conference:
Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?
A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map*, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.
As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore [sic] example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.
As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.
That's my bottom line: do you want John Edwards dragging your country into a war with Iran or not?
All of this netroots/blogger crisis stuff has just been a ridiculous diversion. You may want to grant Edwards a "spine" but you may regret that when it comes to how he might handle foreign affairs if he actually does become the president.
Update: The Catholic League has released its reponse to Edwards' decision. How pompous:
“Edwards said today that ‘We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked.’ I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.
“We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007. It will be an education campaign, informing the public of what he did today.
Reminder: Bill Donohue is The Catholic League's president and he can try to hide from his bigoted track record but it's well-documented.
What a hypocritical blowhard.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Compassion
I would like to explain the meaning of compassion, which is often misunderstood. Genuine compassion is based not on our own projections and expectations, but rather on the rights of the other: irrespective of whether another person is a close friend or an enemy, as long as that person wishes for peace and happiness and wishes to overcome suffering, then on that basis we develop genuine concern for his or her problem. This is genuine compassion. Usually when we are concerned about a close friend, we call this compassion. This is not compassion; it is attachment. Even in marriage, those marriages that last only a short time do so because of attachment – although it is generally present – but because there is also compassion. Marriages that last only a short time do so because of a lack of compassion; there is only emotional attachment based on projection and expectation. When the only bond between close friends is attachment, then even a minor issue may cause one’s projections to change. As soon as our projections change, the attachment disappears – because that attachment was based solely on projection and expectation. It is possible to have compassion without attachment – and similarly, to have anger without hatred. Therefore we need to clarify the distinctions between compassion and attachment, and between anger and hatred. Such clarity is useful in our daily life and in our efforts towards world peace. I consider these to be basic spiritual values for the happiness of all human beings, regardless of whether one is a believer or a nonbeliever.
- HH The Dalai Lama
I think that speaks for itself...
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Catharsis
ca·thar·sis
1. Medicine Purgation, especially for the digestive system.
2. A purifying or figurative cleansing of the emotions, especially pity and fear, described by Aristotle as an effect of tragic drama on its audience.
3. A release of emotional tension, as after an overwhelming experience, that restores or refreshes the spirit.
4. Psychology
1. A technique used to relieve tension and anxiety by bringing repressed feelings and fears to consciousness.
2. The therapeutic result of this process; abreaction.
That's what this place is all about (except for the medical purgation thing which sounds gross). It's a safe envirnoment to rant, vent, scream, swear, cry, laugh, hug - to just let it all out without any restrictions and I believe it is serving us all well in that regard because, even though we have no rules, we honour each other.
/end o' philosophical part
The comments section in spiderleaf's thread has become very long so consider this post Part Deux.
Through that process of catharsis a new blog has been born: Everybody Comes From Somewhere. (I still expect spidey to post a proper birth announcement here with a little pic of some kind so we can all fawn over how cute the new addition is. Apparently, she's been busy watching some game involving a pigskin. Ewww.)
So, we'll keep doing what we do best here: Mo Betta Meta
And the new blog will be a place for...well...that's being defined by the new community. I'll just call it "progress".
Now back to the
Saturday, February 03, 2007
I'm responsible for global warming
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me and you sure don't have to like me (or Boo or anyone else). But when you take it to the "next level" and start endangering totally innocent people, that's when it goes too far. These "paparazzi" are freaking psychos.
The difference between Boo and Britney Spears is she has the BUCKS to hire bodyguards etc. Freaking loons. It's just a fucking blog you freaks!
Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian