Fishing expedition

This post seems like an example of a fishing expedition: Ted Rall is a RACIST: Undeniable evidence (part1). The author is clearly upset over the way Obama is depicted by Rall, but seems to be fishing for anything that might come across as evidence of Rall's alleged racism, from trying to claim that a poorly drawn cat is a racoon (and that by implication Rall is drawing what would indeed be a racial epithet), to droning on about how Obama is drawn in an "apelike" manner, and so on. Here's my take: the author has so far failed to come up with definitive proof of much of anything other than that Rall is at best a mediocre talent in the world of political cartooning. There are better artists out there. Rall's only minor value comes from his willingness to speak out as a critic of American empire. His figures generally look crudely drawn and apelike - see his drawings of the previous President. As far as Rall's ideological positions go, near as I can guess, he's some sort of anarchist. He has nothing nice to say about capitalism, which makes attempts to tar him as some sort of right-winger a bit far-fetched. Nor does the author's attempts to contend that Rall has ever portrayed himself as a "progressive" (same could be said of Rall's followers) - quite the opposite, really. Rall enjoys yanking the chains of those who consider themselves "progressives," and in particular enjoys yanking the chains of those who are overly devoted to the current political leadership (he's pretty equal-opportunity in that regard - Bushies absolutely got their knickers in a knot over his work during much of the prior decade).

Rall is most likely an asshole, and has perhaps limited utility among those left of the Democratic Party for his willingness to call our neoliberal imperial order by its true name. I haven't paid much attention to his comic strip or his column in ages, but at one point his work was mildly entertaining. Still, it is probably not someone whose work would be on my list of recommended reading, or one who I would go out of my way to visit at a book signing. So it goes. He's mediocre and obnoxious, and semi-effective in getting a rise out of defenders of empire (even if they refuse to be identified as such).  But beyond that, why go fishing?

So, you want to talk about catnip? Talk. Do it here. Now.

Who's the latest target of the New But definitely Not Improved Troll Patrol over at dkos?

Me.

Take a look in the comments here.

The genesis of this shitstorm?

I had the audacity to state (back on Feb 24th) that I'd rather see an educated non-voter than an uneducated voter. [I made the same comment back in the 90s to a local, liberal radio talk show host and he used it in his promos for a week after that - not because it contained any shock value but because I was a regular caller he had interviewed in person once about human rights abuses. He respected my opinions and later became (and still is) an elected official*. Are votes important to him? Sure. But he understood exactly what I meant because we live in Conservative Hell.]

* Note to Deoliver47 whose new hobby is doing "research" about me using Google: the story I just shared will not be found online so that one's a dead end.

Anyway, here's how all of this then spiraled out of control. (You will note that I didn't say anything about anybody's race, creed, colour, religion, sexual identity or popcorn-flavour preference in the above comment).

I'd rather see neither. (6+ / 0-)

but at least the voter is standing up and contributing to the process.

this isn't professional sports. most people don't HAVE to be mere spectators.

by mallyroyal on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 10:27:58 AM MST
____

you're implying... (2+ / 0-)

...that non-voters are merely spectators and that they don't contribute anything to democracy. That is not necessarily true.

by catnip on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 10:33:52 AM MST
____


I don't know how else to put how I feel (5+ / 0-)

about the American nonvoter withought degenerating into insults. truly.

by mallyroyal on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 10:35:46 AM MST

___

"feel" is the key word there (2+ / 0-)

Try thinking about why some people don't vote and how they still contribute to democracy.

by catnip on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 10:43:07 AM MST

___

See anything about race there? Nope? That's because it wasn't the issue - until some people made it THE issue. If you follow the thread, you'll see that it diverged into 2 topics which both had the same result: accusing me of being a racist.

The first divergence was made by those who insisted that people who died in wars died for the right to vote. I disagreed. I said people died for freedom - including the right not to vote.

Let me insert the bleedingly obvious here: did the protesters in Egypt and elsewhere recently die "for the right to vote"? Seems to me those Egyptians already had that right even when Mu was still the dictator. No. They died for freedom. That's a pretty simple point, don't you think? But no, when I said to dkos yanks that people died for freedom, that became an affront to African-American soldiers somehow. I'm "culturally insenstive", apparently. (Just another phrase for "racist").

The second divergence from that conversation? I made the mistake of telling mallyroyal (an AA kossack) to "think" instead of "feel". I was immediately jumped on with this:

well you know.... (6+ / 0-)

I only voted for Obama because he's black.

I didn't think about his policy position just like most AA didn't. That's why he has such a high approval ratings from us unthinking AA.

I must try some of that THINKING catnip suggests, but then again being an unthinking AA is so much easier.

;-)

by sephius1 on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 03:21:38 PM

Had I said anything about anybody's race? No.

Ironically, mallyroyal (the person I was accused of being racist against - along with all other AAs) posted this yesterday:

finally some common sense in these comments. (3+ / 0-)

any rational person would read this from a POTUS to a former governor whose brother and father were previously POTUS.

too many kossacks allow their emotionalism to reign supreme while calling it rationale.

by mallyroyal on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:50:31 AM MST

Did the same people accuse him of saying that AAs don't think? Of course not.

Let's fast forward through this clusterfuck:

1. Today I was accused 3 times of outing several people over at mcat's and elsewhere. Of course, the accusers didn't provide any links and one of the people I was accused of outing - slinkerwink - actually outed herself on dkos.

2. Consider this for a moment:

When you stated Sephius called you a racist (5+ / 0-)

which you continued to assert, you were calling him a racist.

Please - stop with the game playing.

by Deoliver47 on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:06:10 AM MST

Here is my response:

let's change the wording... (3+ / 0-)

...to take a look at your preposterous leap of logic:

When you stated Sephius called you a cat (0+ / 0-)

which you continued to assert, you were calling him a cat.

Sorry but your Ps & Qs don't add up.

by catnip on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:47:48 AM MST

Get what's going on there now? Yes. It is that obvious.

I'm not the first person they've done this too. Will I be the last? Stay tuned.

SO, if any of your Troll Patrol keyboard warriors want to take me on: do it here. Now. Be warned: anything goes here and nobody's going to cry for you if your feelings get hurt. The only rule here is: there are no rules.

'Let's get ready to rumble'

 
 

Okay.

Well...brrreaking news...there's a meta shitstorm going on at Teh Daily Kos (when isn't there?) and I've decided to let the various players involved use this place to fight it out because that's what we do here - meta.

Now, I don't know exactly what this is all about. There's talk of "ponies" and "pragmatics" and "hero worshippers" and "dirty fucking hippies" and "racism" and "rainbows" and "secret cabals" and the wreck list and various conspiracy theories. And this all involves "factions" (although I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the Crips and the Bloods here).

In other words: same shit, different day.

So, if you want to have it out, here are the rules:

1. There are no rules.
2. See rule number one.

If you're new here, this was our first post back in 2006 when a bunch of us migrated here from Booman Tribune and Daily Kos.

There are no referees here. You're on your own. (Unless somebody's posting spam trying to sell faux Rolex™ watches - then we might step in.) So, no complaining to the management if somebody hurts your feelings. We don't care.

Any questions?

Oh yeah - NO "pootie" pics. And they're called "cats", for fuck's sake: CATS.
 

Turkey Time

And I'm not talking about the Thanksgiving festivities that my American friends were engaged in this past week.

No.

The fact that a reportedly uninvited socialite couple crashed the WH state dinner has caused numerous heads to explode at the normally sedate (ha!) dkos. Even Mr Blades has joined in on the "what if? ZOMG!!" action positing about how these nefarious crashers could have poisoned The Chosen One with ricin. I kid you not:

Mock all you like. Ricin is an easy poison ... (26+ / 0-)

...to make, requiring only basic chemistry. And it's easy to apply. A syringe is best, but a scratch from, say, a specially prepared bracelet will do the trick. Of course, the Salahis didn't have any bracelets close at hand. So no problem, right?

Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

by Meteor Blades on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 01:13:38 AM MST

Quick! Someone get the man some worry beads. And pass a law pronto banning all bracelets in the WH.

The conspiracy theories about how this all came about are fast and furiously being posted over there - much to the delight of those who are so tightly wrapped up in Hollywoodesque impending disaster porn that they can barely stop their hands from quivering long enough to post "100% correct!" "Boycott Bravo!" "She looks anorexic!". (Oh, the misogyny is out in full force. Trust me.) This, on a site where conspiracy theories are supposed to be a bannable offense because it's a reality-based community. (I know. I know.)

I mean, c'mon. The two of them almost started a nuclear war! when they weren't busy posing with the nation's poseurs.

 

 

Well. At least they don't have to waste time talking about and justifying that shitty, so-called health insurance reform sell-out bill today. On with the show!
 

Dana Houle: Banned

Announced with no fanfare whatsoever to avoid offending Houle's rather delicate sensibilities.

wait...so MB saw that... (3+ / 0-)


but missed DH in MI's many meltdowns? That would make MB like a pro 'rasslin' ref who was accidentally looking the other way.

-6.88,-6.77

by Shahryar on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:09:50 PM MDT



*
Perhaps you should click... (1+ / 0-)


...here.

Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

by Meteor Blades on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 11:28:02 AM MDT


LOL...You banned DH? (0+ / 0-)

Roar Louder!!! @ Docudharma

by buhdydharma on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:20:57 PM MDT

Your Moment of Zen™: What is the sound of one (severely narcissistic) head exploding?

Please sign the condolence book below.
 

If you don't support Obama, you'll kill him

So this is goodbye from me. At least for a while. I wish you all the best and i'll pray for Obama's safety every day, because i've seen first hand how tragic can be the end of a visionary and forward-looking leader, when right wing lunatics decide to eliminate him and the left leaves him all alone.

- Daily Kos diarist, blackwaterdog

[insert heavy sigh here]

It was bad enough when, during the campaign, people who criticized Obamalama were labeled "racists". Now, you are basically the one holding the gun to his head if you voice your opposition to his policies which, contrary to the laundry list of hyped-up crap in that diary, have been anything near "progressive".

But the Leave Obama Alone! crowd can't deal with reality hitting them in the face. Too much "doom and gloom", they say - as if it's all about how their poor feelings are getting hurt. Maybe they should sit down for a face to face with the families of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and talk "feelings". Maybe they should have a face to face with those who've been tortured who won't see any justice done by this administration and talk "feelings". Maybe they should have a face to face with people who are dying from a lack of proper health care and talk "feelings".

But, no. If the "left" (whatever is left of the left in the US surely isn't in this Democratic party) abandons the Spelunker-in-Chief (I coined that term) who never met a cave he didn't like - he's as good as dead.

We joke about the insanity of the wingnuts who are showing up, completely misinformed while embarrassing themselves to no end, to the health care town halls. Pelosi and Hoyer have called their rabble-rousing "un-American". (Them's fighting words.) Meanwhile, the so-called "left" on blogs like Daily Kos - who loudly cheered the protests in Iran while posts about US protests for universal health care on the site faded quietly into oblivion - can't even bring themselves to get their asses off their chairs to get out there to fight for their rights in their country. No. Obama told them to write their congresspeople (because that's so effective, isn't it?).

Conservatives typically despise unruliness. Oh how they hated the 60s. And this centrist bunch of self-identified "pragmatic" Dems - who also chided every attempt by groups like Code Pink to bring attention to the horrific wrongs perpetrated by Bushco (and now continued by Obama's administration) - are stuck standing by while the right-wingers ironically claim the radical mantle of very public dissent. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Rahm Emanuel says that "Dems attacking other Dems are 'fucking stupid'". This, in the middle of a seriously muddled attempt to roll out a bill that the Dems have absolutely failed to explain.

Obama kicks the issue back to congress. But, because he believes he is the face of absolutely everything (and haven't you felt like selling your teevee too by now?), he owns this mess. And he owns the fact that the wingnuts are having an absolute field day (death panels, anyone?).

He owns every single bad policy decision his government has enacted since he's been in office. He wants to own it all. How many times have you seen one of his cabinet secretaries in the media explaining his policies? Does anybody even know who they are?

And, as has been noted ad nauseum by people who are actually in touch with reality on the real left and who won't be guilted into backing off from criticizing him because of ridiculous claims like the one made by the above-quoted Daily Kos diarist, Obama has committed a slough of very non-progressive missteps. He's only been in office 7 months!, they proclaim. As if he's going to change his very character and wake up one morning soon to unleash his hidden inner liberal. Or maybe, they hope, Michelle will make him do it. (No, really. Some have actually said that.)

Read my lips: that's not going to happen.

The Hopeyness train has left the station and it took the Changeyness policies with it.

You just can't call the wingnuts crazy while making equally crazy statements yourself.

If you can't stand the much-deserved criticism, refresh, refresh, refresh and leave the rest of us alone.

 
Crossposted from my place.
 

Daily Kos, Chevron, Bill Clinton, and Kazahkstan

 
Follow the bouncing ball:

So, I popped into dkos late Thursday nite and discovered a front page post by (Mr Environment/Tree Hugger Extraordinaire) Meteor Blades about massive oil company profits.

Noticeably absent: any mention of Chevron.

Now, those of you who are familiar with the history of the controversy of Chevron ads appearing at dkos may also remember kos'"it's all about the money I make" response to the fact that Chevron has abused the human rights of thousands around the world.

Running an ad doesn't imply endorsement. But, if I start rejecting ads, THEN every ad that DOES run has an implied endorsement.

And you guys aren't idiots. The advertising purity trolls seem to think that site readers are moron automatons easily manipulated by advertising. I have a higher opinion of you guys. I actually think you're quite intelligent and capable of independent evaluation of the advertising you consume here and elsewhere.

Finally, I'm not afraid of money, and I'm putting it to good use -- the abandonment of Scoop and a massive ground-up redevelopment of Daily Kos to be the ultimate blogging platform in the world, and the establishment of a corps of "fellows" to do great activism.

More details on those projects will emerge in December, but [sic] bottom line is that I won't cry if Chevron or anyone else wants to help fund the rise of a professional netroots activist class.

(I'll wait while you laugh about that "professional netroots activist class" bit.)

So, is it any wonder MB didn't mention that Chevron'a profits are up 29% more than they were a year ago. You just can't bring that up at dkos without being told one of at least 3 things by the Mighty Defenders of kos brigade:

1. This is kos' site and he has the right to make money (and who cares if he makes it by accepting major cash from big oil?)

2. We're actually fooling Chevron by taking their money (while at the same time, we're not boycotting their products or doing anything like "activism" to bring them down).

3. If you don't want to see the ads, buy a subscription to block them (ie. pay kos so you won't have to be reminded what a sell-out he is to his so-called "progressive" principles.

And what does this have to do with Bill Clinton and Kazakhstan, you ask?

Keep reading...

When "Borat-Gate" broke on dkos earlier this week, alleging that Clinton may have had a role in Canadian Frank Giustra's uranium mining deal with Kazakhstan, kossacks were outraged - outraged that Bill was dealing with a dictator from a country that had such a poor human rights record.

And that's where Chevron and kossack hypocrisy comes in yet again because this week this story also came out: Chevron venture boosts Kazakhstan oil production.

A Chevron Corp. joint venture has boosted production of oil at a field in Kazakhstan using new technology.

San Ramon-based Chevron (NYSE: CVX) has a 50 percent stake in Tengizchevroil LLP, the company doing the work in the Tengiz oil field, located on the northeast shore of the Caspian Sea in Central Asia. Chevron's partners in the venture are ExxonMobil Kazakhstan Ventures Inc., which holds a 25 percent stake; a Russian oil company, LukArco, which holds 5 percent; and the government of Kazakhstan, which owns 20 percent through its state oil company, KazMunaiGas.

Don't expect to see any outrage about that over at dkos though. That would be tantamount to blasphemy as I noted above and, as we know, kos doesn't care anyway. Just like the big oil companies, kos' concerns about human rights come second (or third or fourth) to blatant capitalist exploitation so just STFU.

To top it all off, I accidentally discovered that the city of Berkeley (where kos lives) passed a resolution last week to boycott Chevron products citing the company's "ecological destruction and involvement in human rights abuses in Angola, Burma, Ecuador and Nigeria, as well as the San Francisco Bay Area".

Oh, the irony.

You can't buy a subscription to make those facts go away, kossacks.

(crossposted at Political Fleshfeast)
 

Question du Jour

So, riddle me this: with all of the Obama-love™ going on over at Daily Kos, why is is that no one over there (from what I've seen) is bothered that this so-called "progressive" candidate who promises them the liberal nirvana they claim to seek (and will not come anywhere close to providing anyway) has completely snubbed that site since 2005 (when he was roundly trounced for trying to start a round of Kumbaya in the Democratic party after the John Roberts nomination)?

Now I can see why Obama wouldn't bother with that bunch considering the insanity and inanity that goes on there, but they just don't seem to care that he's not rushing over to pull them all into his grand new plan. Or, maybe they do care but they don't want to mention it because that might make him look bad.

I think it's the latter.
 

How Soon They Forget

Markos on January 2, 2008:

Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would’ve been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies.

Markos on January 20, 2003:

But it's not even just ANSWER. It's every yahoo with a pet cause. I turned on C-SPAN's coverage for 30 seconds before listening to a speaker make a pitch for slavery reparations. Nevermind that reparations is about the dumbest cause in the country today, what the heck did it have to do with opposing war against Iraq? Jeez.

Problem #2: I don't care for many of the participants. You know, those eager to relive their 60's activism using the exact same tactics as they did in the 60s, or the younger generations trying to capture a bit of that old time religion. Call me cynical, call me an asshole, but the world is a bit more complex than "make love, not war". There is a time and place for war, and blanket outrage at the concept of war is simply naive. By contrast, WTO protesters seem to be far more educated about their cause and have far more of an edge (for lack of a better word) -- which, to me, makes them more effective. Anger is good (short of smashing storefronts, that is), and far better than this "smile and sing folk songs" crap. Or the "support my pet cause and, oh yeah, oppose war while you're at it" crap.

Markos on June 5, 2005:

And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site. Feel free to be offended. Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country. Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.

Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

Or here's Markos on October 17, 2005:

I'm increasingly convinced that the biggest intra-movement divide nowadays isn't ideological -- we mostly all agree on the same things -- but generational. Old school activists view politics and the activist realm differently than new school activists (very generally speaking). Those differences manifest themselves in arguments over single issue groups, effective activism, partisanship, tone, style, pragmatism, the types of candidates we should run, etc.

New school progressives are also less tolerant of ideological orthodoxy. We don't fall in line with the "acceptable" liberal position, frankly, because we're not trained to fall in line. We are more likely to be educated in an economy that values "proactiveness" and "self-initiative" and "problem solving" over blindly following the orders of our boss. We have the tools to research any and every issue in a way inconcievable even 10 years ago. We no longer need to rely on our "leaders" or the media to tell us what the "right" position on any one issue might be. And our own individual life experiences will color our perceptions of any issue. If you are an inner city parent with shitty public schools for your kids, school vouchers probably look pretty darn good even if the theory offends progressive sensibilities.

[snip]

The political landscape is different, no doubt -- the politics of old where "leaders" told us how to think and act is dead. The media landscape has changed -- the era when a few editors and producers determined our "leaders" and excluded other voices is dead.

Markos on May, 2006:

“If I was antiwar, I did it very poorly,” he says. “I supported going into Kosovo and Afghanistan. I’ve earned a lot of enmity by dismissing the antiwar protestors and the hippie mentality of the far left, this whole ‘all-war-is-bad’ bullshit. I grew up in war in El Salvador. I served in the military. I understand the concept of a good and just and fair and necessary war.”

Dude, given how you characterize Obama, and given your own past behavior of dissing core constituencies within the party you claim to be promoting, he should be your ideal candidate. There's an old saying about casting stones while living in glass houses. Might be a good time for old Markos to brush up on that one.

Bonus: of course Kos isn't the only one to indulge in the Big Orange fetish for hippie-bashing. There are others (e.g., Lestatdelc).

The Markos Story Continues to Circulate

The Angryindian sez:

The Outing of a Republican Mole

Establishment liberal blog DailyKos has been outed by a member of the AfroSpear as an operative of the republican party.

Is it true? If the information provided is accurate, it totally destroys the republican mythology of the liberal-dominated media. In other words, perhaps this is why Pelosi and the democrat crew the American public sent to the hill were able to be trusted by the progressive and anti-war public, the DailyKos reported them as the sole alternative to the Bush administration. The very same people who refuse to use their constitutional powers to stop the madness. The DailyKos also refuses to accept commentary concerning 911 that refutes the Bush administration's assertions. Go figure. - The Angryindian

The rest of the post is from one of Francis Holland's Kos posts.

Orange Letter #163

An "Open Letter" To Daily Kos

Swiped more or less intact from this thread at Marisacat's blog. lucid wrote it. I repost it with A) minor snips and B) his permission.

"I’ve given pause to what I would say to this “community”, if I ever saw fit to comment again. What meta would I nitpick? Which posters would I call out and link to, showing them to be the asshole DP whips that they are? Which cult of personality is the worst? Which ideological cult is the most offensive?

"But why even do that? Most of you believe and defend with savage juvenility the idea that getting any Democrat elected will somehow cure all the ills of society. Most of you are young or naive enough in your ‘politically aware’ lives to forget about the fact that Clinton accomplished more for right wing politics than any Republican could ever have done before him. The gutting of welfare, hey, couldn’t be done under Reagan. Reinstatement of the federal death penalty… a no go there too, so long as a Republican was in office. The gutting of FCC ownership laws with respect to monopoly in specific localities? Hey, no Republican could achieve that either. First Amendment zones? Clinton. Pre-emptive war… Kosovo anyone?

"You bask in a fantastic memory that a Democrat in the White House somehow made the world a better place. It might have been better in this county for the upper middle class and marginally better for the poor, but it sucked just as equally for the rest of the world. We still fought cold and hot wars. We passed the most regressive trade legislation the world has ever seen that expropriated, exploited and killed more people than any of the shitty covert proxy wars we’d fought before.

The system is broken. There isn’t a democracy here.

The machine politicians to whom you contribute will do nothing to speak for the people.

"They only speak for those who show up at their $5,000/plate fundraising dinners. And they don’t give a shit about the “netroots” save the lip service of a staffer diary here and there & the buying of advertisements. That means they really care.

"I had jumped the ship. Then I gave it an ear again, for a time. But when I encountered more of the same, ‘shaming’, party whipping, rejection of anti-capitalist ideas, the complete disavowal of history, I jumped the ship again.

"You live in a fantasy. You haven’t the foresight to recognize the disintegration of everything you hold dear, though it drips away with every passing second."

(Find more from him at, Lucid Culture --what else ?!-- ;), regarding politics, local bands and other things.)

The Markos Family Jewels: Curiouser and Curiouser

A few days ago I highlighted Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga's fondness for the CIA (the dude - at bare minimum - interviewed for a position there, and is on record as holding a favorable attitude toward the organization notorious for its human rights record). Well, now we find that Markos' own family history is not quite as he would portray it. Francis Holland has a few points to ponder and some questions of his own. If nothing else, we get a more complete picture of one of the most prominent partisan Democrat bloggers and would-be power players, including perhaps some insight into why DailyKos operates in such an authoritarian manner and the positions that the blog appears to favor regarding the political direction of the US.

Armando vs Meteor Blades

And here, we come across that odd snarly beast known as Armando in his natural state: fur ruffled, claws out, teeth bared. Armando aka BTD - who often stalks his prey in the dark of nite (or broad daylight for that matter...) with the fury of a rabid lefty netroots crusader hot on the trail of the latest blasphemer.

An abdication of responsibility (3.00 / 1)

This comment from Meteor Baldes is outrageous:

It's up to us to create a groundswell ... (0 / 0)

...of support. And up to us who believe impeachment is the right move to persuade people who can actually vote to begin impeachment proceedings. When the proceedings started against Richard Nixon in October 1973, only 39% of Americans supported impeachment or resignation, even though only 27% approved of the job he was doing.

You may be right that impeachment proceedings will not happen. Without proceedings, no impeachment. They certainly won't happen without the Democratic votes on the Judiciary Committee. Discussing impeachment will continue whether you like it or not. Personally, I don't think we need to have any more philosophical discussion about whether it's a good idea or not, or whether it's possible. We're split on that and we've all pretty much had our say. No need for further flamewars.

So now, it's up to those of us who believe impeachment is possible, and the right thing, to see if we can make it happen. If we can't, then you can tell us all to shut up.

Can we hold out this long?

by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:13:19 AM PDT

Meteor Blades has used the Front Page of Daily Kos to forward as harmful a proposal as one could imagine at this time and he does not want to discuss the outrageousness of his actions.

His irresponsibility will forward and harmful discussion instead of moving forward on ending the Iraq Debacle. And he thinks we should not discuss his harmful actions.

Excuse me Meteor Blades. What you are doing is extremely wrong and extremely irresponsible. You have abused your trust as a FPer at daily kso by not considering these issues and instead have assuaged your vainglorious wishes.

Leaders do not behave in this way. Leaders weigh the consequences of their actions. You should be ashamed.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:26:24 AM EST

You have to give him points for using "vainglorious", at least. That's a mighty fancy-schmancy kind of word. (Not to mention the minimal number of typos - quite remarkable, that.)

Oh, but wait, Armando wasn't done yet and had to follow up his own comment with 2 more:

Here's what I am saying (3.00 / 1)

MEteor Blades should write DIARIES saying this if he believes it is meaningful.

But he shoulod not post it on the FP of daily kos.

He owes the Netroots to consider what the perception and result of his actions will be when he does so.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE...BREAKING...METEOR BLADES KILLS NETROOTS...developing...

As a former FPer (3.00 / 1)

I can tell you that it was well understood what types of issues should merit careful consideration before writng a FP post taking a posiiton on them.

Of course there are a myriad of important issues where FPers would disagree. Those were open for debate and the outside world consequences were largely minimal.

Impeachment is not one of those issues. It is too hot and too potentially harmful for a FPer to just throw out outlandish ill thought out posts as Meteor Blades did.

He should express his opinion on THAt topic in the diaries, not on the FP.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:04:27 AM EST

Yes, know your place MB, damnit. Know.your.place. Armando will have justice or thy punishment shall be swift! Off with your FP privileges, traitor! Send him to the tower.

MB fights back (and is offered some battle tactics to escape the tower by yours truly since BooMan has given up his dreams of conquest and strategerizing because he's an adult now.)

As you are quite well aware ... (none / 0)

...having been a former Front Pager, FPers have a free hand - except when it comes to raising money or violating the FAQs - to write what we want. We represent ourselves only when we write unless we sign onto a piece as a group, which has happened only once IIRC.

by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:49:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There, MB tried the cautious, reasoned approach which we all know drives the beast Armando mad (especially the use of the word "former" - oooo, ouch - like a sword through an enlarged liver).

Re: As you are quite well aware ... (3.00 / 1)

there are and were certain issues where FPers RIGHTLY chose to express their views IN DIARIES understnaidng that the perception of a FP post is quite different from that of a diary.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:51:35 AM EST

Yes MB, what will the neighbours think?? My god man - think of the children! Think of the intertubes! Think of the donors! Think of the beer money! We may never be able to Drink Liberally™ again!!

Does MB end up back in the tower? Will Armando get his blood?
*******

Want more?

This exciting sneak preview clip of Armando Gone Wild (Again) brought to you by Not Exactly Crashing the Gates While Banging Our Heads Against the Wall and Each Other.

Grab your popcorn! You won't want to miss a moment of this action-packed thriller.
 

That Super-Duper Secret Townhouse List

Via Daniel Schuman at Mother Jones:

Given that the first rule of Townhouse is that there is no Townhouse, it was quite a challenge to get even one person to talk about the list on record (though I spoke to several people about the list who did not want to be quoted, even anonymously). It's my understanding that any list member who speaks about it publicly, or even acknowledges that it exists, risks immediate expulsion from the list. Incidentally, that's precisely what happened to Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing, who was unceremoniously dumped from Townhouse after my article came out. O’Connor had this to say about Townhouse: “It's fucking Skull and Bones, man. The very secretive, behind-closed-doors nature of it is anathema to everything that blogging is supposed to be about: accountability. We are supposed to be showing the way, not skulking around behind closed doors, coming up with strategies. Those are the people who we're trying to fight. I know about 'the real world' and all that shit. But we're the idealists, aren't we?"

Yeah, well that's all fine and dandy MSOC, but the fact is that you still chose to stay on the "fucking Skull and Bones, man" list anyway. If this was about blogger ethics, you should have quit long ago. And exactly which ideals were you holding up while you were on that list if you were so damn opposed to it?

Now, onto this tidbit (which I found courtesy of OP&G):

(Fun fact: According to an email I obtained, sent out to Townhouse members by Stoller in March, the list is now a commercial enterprise. Subscriptions * run $60 per year for individual subscribers and up to $1000 for organizations, the proceeds of which will go to pay Stoller’s rent and health care costs, according to his message.)

About these boyz who cry poverty - I recall Bowers doing just that at dkos a while ago (poor him) - like we're supposed to care. If you can't make a living blogging, get another job or support yourself by flipping burgers while you blog in your spare time. It's as simple as that.

I recently had a private conversation with someone who felt I should have "sympathy" for the fact that they were a poor blogger. Yeah. I don't think so. You, poor blogger, are able to actually work out there in the real world (unlike me and others - who don't complain about not enhancing our bank accounts dramatically from blogging, btw). You choose poverty and expect "sympathy" as if you're Dog's gift to the blogging world? Get stuffed.

There's a glass ceiling in the American so-called left-wing blogosphere which you helped create. So if you keep banging your head on it, buy your own bandaids - or at least be extremely grateful to those who do pass on some cash to you to lower those costs instead of expecting "sympathy".

Anyway, if it's true that Stoller is begging for cash for "rent" and "health care costs" then how did he pay for his recent one week vacation in Hawaii? If that's poverty, sign me up.

And, once again, what is so secret about blogging and issues that an exclusive list like Townhouse needs to exist? Whatever talking points they're throwing out through that list make for a very monolithic and boring read throughout the BBBs because they all cover the same damn things. When was the last time you read a FP piece on any of these blogs that was so utterly compelling and unique that it left you in awe wanting more? Or when did you last see a true piece of investigative journalism on any of the big blogs that broke the BBB mold? If Townhouse acts as some sort of Democratic party newswire which its members then rely on for content, it is doing a huge disservice to blog readers who might as well just read the Democratic Party's web site instead.

Then again, for all I know, maybe they just exchange chess game tips and ring tones. Since no one wants to speak up about it - as if they'll be summarily hanged for treason - I guess we just don't know, do we?

As for this:

One of the questions O'Connor raised when we spoke, an interesting one I thought, is what will become of the once independent bloggers, the idealists, now that they’ve worked their way into the inner sanctum of the Democratic machine. Will they change it for the better from the inside, or simply become a new generation of win-at-any-cost political operatives. It’s a question worth asking, but I don’t think anyone has any answer just yet.

Wanna bet, Schulman?

Related: Schulman's prior piece about the blogosphere, Meet the New Bosses. (Note to Schulman: Daily Kos is not a "liberal" blog.)
 

Kos on the CIA:

I don’t think it’s a very partisan thing to want a stable world. And even if you’re protecting American interests, I mean that can get ugly at times, but generally speaking I think their hearts in the right place. As an organization their heart is in the right place. I’ve never had any problem with the CIA. I’d have no problem working for them . .

Found at Francis Holland's blog, with my emphasis added. Note that the title is a tad misleading - Kos spent six months interviewing for a CIA job (a bit of a difference between that and actually working for CIA). Yeah, their hearts are in the right place, all right! And this dude is the presumed mouthpiece of today's "progressive" Democrats.

A Gentle Folly

This is a critical moment for all of us. (4+ / 0-)

And the work is gentle. Many people whom we will need as our allies have been heavily invested in resisting impeachment to this point.

I have found much more success on the front page with laying out the case and leaving the conclusion obvious but unstated -- or at least very gently stated.

There has been no shortage of blunter statements, and no shortage of people making them. But if you follow the tracks back, you will find that some of those voices making those statements were brought along both by circumstances on the ground, and by my having laid the case out in ways they ultimately could not overcome.

It hasn't worked for everyone. But it has been more successful among resisters than has blunt force, to date.

Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.

by Kagro X on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:21:47 AM PDT

He is, of course, talking about making the case for impeachment in his diary about the latest subpoenas announced by the Dems.

And, speaking of subpoenas and their "power":

WASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.

The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas.
[...]
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

All fine and good but how long will that take? Bush and Cheney could be history by the time a federal court case is decided - if one is even brought forward by the Dems.

But, go gently with the talk of impeachment.

As one commenter said over at dkos, he has "all the time in the world."

The thing is, America doesn't.
 

Part of the problem

This diary led to this exchange (among many others). Among the Manichean Donkle mindguards is Elise, who sez:

There are rules at this site. If you can't support Democrats getting elected- find a site that will agree with your silliness and go there.

The thing of it is, as several commentors noted, there is a strong undercurrent of frustration with the Donkle status quo. Sweeping that frustration under the rug, preventing an honest discussion of that frustration, will not make it go away. Rather it will lead to some very surprised Big Orange denizens come November 2008 when election results don't quite break their way.

Just sayin'.

Hat tip to outofwater at Marisacat's blog.

kos: You broke it, you own it

Wednesday: The "mayor" was upset.

I've got to say, of all the things that get me down about this job, there's nothing worse than the people who want to quit the game and take their ball home every time we face a setback. It's as if every word I've ever written about this being a long-term battle means zero. As if it's instant gratification or nothing.
[...]
The conservative movement spent three decades building up their machine and completing the takeover of their party. And some of you want to quit after one setback?

That's embarrassing.

Buck up. We still haven't completely lost this Iraq supplemental battle. And if we do, instead of crying and taking your ball home, resolve to fight even harder. We owe it to our troops in Iraq, to our families, to our neighbors, to ourselves.

Shorter kos: My party, right or wrong.

Shaming is such a handy tool. Who cares about the Dems caving, backing down, capitulating, surrendering, abandoning what they were elected to do? How dare anyone stand on principle and refuse to support them. "Buck up." kos has feelings and you're embarassing him.

Thursday: After realizing that his party really is full of a bunch of sellouts and spineless Bush appeasers - many of which his glorified ATM machine helped elect.

So who's fault is it we have this turkey on our hands?

The most obvious culprit are the Republicans, who'd rather keep seeing our troops die in the Iraqi desert than admit their Dear Leader has made a blunder of epic proportion. But that's too easy. We won control of Congress last year. Congressional Republicans should be irrelevant.

So it's on to the Democrats, who appear to have learned nothing from the last few elections, and continue to cling to outdated CW like, "Voters think Democrats are weak because we don't want to bomb the shit out of other countries."

Voters think Democrats are weak -- and I'm in this camp -- because if Democrats don't fight for what they believe in, then what will they fight for? How can we trust them to do what's right when they'll jump at shadows?

I guess that's what happens when you get out of that pity party you were having in your head the day before when you decided to take it out on everybody else except the elected Democrats and finally smell the fucking coffee.

Oh, but wait...

So yeah, it's the Democrats fault. But do we blame the whole caucus, or do we blame the Blue Dog/DLC/Third Way Dems who held this supplemental hostage? From simple deduction (looking at the votes on the Warner and Feingold-Red [sic] amendments), the culprits are:

Pryor
Lincoln
Landrieu
Nelson
Nelson
Salazar

Conspicuously absent: Webb, Tester, Sherrod Brown... kos-approved (tm) Blue Dogs.

There are many individual Democrats who are heroically fighting against this war, and will vote against this blank check Capitulation Bill. But they've been let down by their leadership. I don't pretend to understand the legislative process, but last time I checked, the leadership has broad powers to control what legislation reaches the floor for a vote.

Gee. You'd think that after having a political blog for a few years, he'd actually take some time to learn about the legislative process? And those heroic Dems are those you continue to marginalize, kos. Does the name Kucinich ring a bell? The most you could bring yourself to say about him was "ugh".

kos: finally jumping on the obvious bandwagon, a day late and a dollar short after realizing that people aren't buying his "it's just about winning" game anymore.
 

kos v Feminism

 
kos's original post about Kathy Sierra

"progressive" blogosphere outrage ensues

kos's non-apology

"progressive" blogosphere response ensues

one bloggers sums the scenario up quite succinctly

kos apologists fall in line and defend their man

Discuss.

(Mysogynists not welcome. We've heard your crap 1000 times over. It's old, stale, pointless and comes from a place of fear. Go hang out with this guy instead or just do us all a favour and seek intensive therapy.)
 

The Blogroll Purge Fallout Continues

When I signed up for one of those aggregators that I wanted to be a part of a while ago (you know, the directories that you show you belong to by adding their little button to the sidebar of your site), I also subscribed to a blog marketing newsletter (which I hardly read anyway - but I do come across some interesting stuff in it now and then).

The other day, the newsletter included a link to an article about how Google rankings work which included info about the effect of being included on the blogrolls of popular sites. I decided to send that link to skippy because he's been very involved in blogging about the blogroll purge. He posted the info on his site and throughout blogtopia (y!sctp!) including over at BooMan Tribune where BooMan partly rebutted skippy's post with this. (You'll recall that BooMan was very forgiving of kos after his site was purged from the Almighty dkos blogroll).

markos gave every diarist their own blogroll, thereby immensely increasing the number of bloglinks emanating from his site. i don't know how powerful those links are compared to the homepage, but it would seem he has greatly increased the potential for helping google rankings and taking himself out of the decision making process.

skippy, being the investigative kangaroo that he is, then contacted the author of that Google rankings article and has posted his response and it's not good news, nor does it support BooMan's suppositions - a fact BooMan is not very happy about. Nor should he be. (You'll notice that a kos defender™ has predictably shown up in that thread to stand up for King kos' now-tarnished honour. Those minions work so hard. I wonder what they get out of it - besides absolutely nothing from kos and egg on their faces).

In a nutshell, for those who are less technologically inclined, the shorter version of the author's answers is that there certainly is a big difference between being linked to from a blogroll on the main page of Daily Kos as opposed to being included in an individual's blogroll. In fact, the way kos and his technical team have things set up behind the scenes, the "bots" that search his site have actually been disabled in a way that totally obliterates the recognition of the blogrolls of individual Daily Kos members.

the diary owner's blogrolls are being disallowed to googlebot by the robots.txt files. the url structure of the diary owners' blogrolls is like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/user/username/blogroll

because of this line in the robots.txt file - "disallow: /user" - google isn't allowed to visit those diary users' blogroll pages, and index them, and follow the links upon them. in terms of ranking value for these user blogrolls, there is none, because google isn't allowed to visit those pages.

So, there you have it.

The individual blogroll compromise that was offered by kos after Blogroll Amnesty Day is worthless in terms of how your site might be picked up via a Google search. Overall, that does affect your site's rankings and your ability to use those rankings to do things like justifying a higher ad price if you're into the money-making end of the blogosphere.

And yes, skippy and others certainly do have the right to say "I told you so". Good work, roo. That's why you're skippy and others...are not.