Sick

Don't ever underestimate these fuckers. They are fucking vicious. If one of them shows up where I am in the United States I will fucking shoot them. And I'm a pacifist. I'll be in Europe in about 30 days and good luck finding me there, fuckers.

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

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:

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:

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.

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.

& where does this vile pile of steaming racist jingosim come from? Lou Dobbs? Tom Lancredo? David Duke?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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:

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.

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...

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 catharsisizing catharsisization chatting...

I'm responsible for global warming

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Meta!

It's been a while but I know you have things to talk about.

RIP Molly Ivins

Suffice it to say, she will be missed.

A New Year Wish Of Peace For A Friend

This blog has lain dormant for a few months now, despite the best efforts of Catnip and others like James and Arcturus. And though all of you are very talented and passionate in your own ways, I think we all know why this blog is silent.

Over the last week or so I've been revisiting some of the most powerful, heartfelt and wrenching writing I've ever read. No matter the subject, whether rape, war in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, American exceptionalism, or something as mundane as who controls the remote control, the kids or the elders, these writings I speak of had a magical way of weaving a story and taking me into the heart of the writer and feeling the joy, the pain, the outrage...and the love that poured forth from it.

I know not where my friend is or how he is doing. I only wish that he is in peace. That his heart remain steady. That he can know some sense of the respect and yes, love I feel for him.

For DuctapeFatwa

The Wonderful World of Meta

Since this past summer, I've come to realize that any of a number of the A-list blogs can be potential grist for meta-rants, including Firedoglake and Mahablog. The reason I mention it is that there are a whole bunch of meta-rants spawned by some of the ignorant bile spewed by these shining examples of progressive "tolerance." Some examples to whet the appetite shall suffice:

From last summer, let's recall the pro-Lamont post by Jane Hamsher (of Firedoglake fame) at Huffington Post that in and of itself was fairly innocuous except for one glaring problem: a photoshopped image of Joe Lieberman in blackface. Needless to say the fallout was fast and furious, and the image was taken down at Huffington Post, though it remains available still over at Jane's place. That was followed by a somewhat bratty non-apology "apology." The artist who did the very crappy photoshop job on old Holy Joe was also characteristically dismissive. Slate's John Dickerson referred to Jane as "the blogger who isn't helping Ned Lamont." BAGnewsNotes had some commentary of its own:

Also, excuse me for being technical, but the phrase "choice of image" is not that forthcoming, either. As I understand it, Hamsher didn't just choose this illustration -- she conceived it.

[snip]

On the visual alone, the use of "black face" is so culturally loaded, it's hard to believe Ms. Hamsher wouldn't see this coming back at her. But then, maybe she truly is missing the visual dynamics of the sphere. (As a further reflection of the mindset, FDL -- in spite of its prominence and heavy use of graphics -- has yet to adopt photo or illustration credits as standard practice.)

Finally, doctoring Lieberman side-by-side with Bill Clinton only heightens the blasphemy. But it's based on the controversial campaign flier, you say? Sure. But, because Hamsher's post made no mention of the flier, and had nothing to do with race, how were Huffington Post readers supposed to "appreciate" the context?

A pretty good graphic meta blog post can be found at ebogjonson, who creates a graphic titled should I use blackface on my blog? Liza at Culture Kitchen had a scathing meta rant titled "Jane Hamsher is an idiot" which not only takes Hamsher to task, but also Barb of Mahablog fame who chooses to play the role of enabler. Kai Chang has another thoughtful rant (yes, rants can be thoughtful!), Blackface Joe: Five Grievances. Just the tip of the old iceberg on that one, but you get the picture.

Let's move on to September of this year. Several A-list bloggers got to bask in the glory of Bill Clinton at a lunch in Harlem. That in and of itself is essentially par for the course. And yet, there seemed to be something missing from the lovely photo-ops. Notice it? Well, Liza (among numerous others) sure did. The A-listers in attendance were, as one might expect, quite oblivious and not too terribly keen on fielding those uncomfortable questions about the lack of, say, Black and Hispanic bloggers at the luncheon. Chris Rabb simply notes that blogtopia is largely reflective of society at large - the racial inequities we find in the world outside blogging show up here as well. Kai makes note of a chasm illuminated, and of a wide perceptual gulf that we ignore at our own peril. of course leave it to TRex (who strikes me from what I've read of him as the gay "liberal" equivalent of David Duke - Donna's quick capsule summary of his general anti-Asian vibe is a must) of FDL to say:

So, Liza, dear, before you go assailing your betters and making Jane stand in for every blond white woman who ever pissed you off, maybe you should head back to eighth grade English and, you know, learn to spell and to write in a linear fashion.

No matter how much the dude tries to nuance that later, it still smacks of white privilege as Feministe's Zuzu correctly notes in here excellent post know your place (by the way - the comments to TRex's post are quite educational in and of themselves as an exercise in groupthink). Is Jane the "left's" answer to Ann Coulter? One must wonder. Certainly there is tone over at FDL that is nothing short of bullying - not only Jane but the other front-pagers over there are indeed culpable. Barb of Mahablog falls into a secondary role of enabler of the other A-listers' defensiveness.

Now let's fast forward to the last week or so. It ain't only race, as numerous others point out. Often intolerance (whether of the overt variety or the more covert variety that is more typical of polite society) of one group co-occurs with intolerance for other groups. If you see a pattern of racism, you'll not have to do much digging to find at least one other "ism". Indeed, there is a pervasive pattern of sexist language over at FDL as well. Barb of Mahablog becomes conflicted, and seems to temporarily drop the enabler role. Blackface Joementum? Kewl. White elite bloggers schmoozing with Big Dog? Okay, though not as kewl as Blackface Joe. Use of the C-word or W-word? Muy malo. Huh. Other meta-blogging makes the connection over at FDL between the racism and sexism that seems to run rampant.

There seem to be some interesting discussions regarding the efforts by mainstream white liberal bloggers to obfuscate matters of racist or sexist behavior by playing the "good intentions" card (i.e., "Person X didn't intend to be racist, it just unfortunately looked that way") whereas people of color tend to look at the tangible behaviors themselves (an approach I generally advocate taking). This reminds me of what we see in North American society at large, as I've been reminded while reading Sherene Razack's book Dark Threats & White Knights. Other A-listers have preferred to play the "intellectual superiority" card by contending (usually in an obscenity laden manner) that their critics simply do not understand the abstract level in which they are supposedly operating. Still others have played the "hipness" card, such as when one of the FDL front-pagers claims that FDL posts are "punk rock" whereas their critics are more into "Guy Lombardo". Word to the wise: Jello Biafra wrote the post-mortem for punk in 1986 at the tail-end of the first wave of American hardcore. That little pop culture history lesson aside, let's note that punk itself was about shocking its audience into awareness (via profanities and obscenities) as a means of challenging social conventions - not about using such language and imagery as a means to maintain the status quo and silence dissent. A-listers would be wise to avoid referencing punk or the hip-hop notion of "keeping it real" as a mere debate tactic, while divorcing themselves from the social-historical context of those concepts & movements.

In the meantime, the necessary conversation about the extent that the liberal and progressive end of blogtopia (and indeed society at large) is harboring latent (and periodically overt) racism and sexism, how American liberalism and progressivism are themselves products of a historical and social context that itself is largely racist and sexist. That discussion itself is long overdue.

Left? What Left?

Every so often we see one of these rants over that the Big Box Blogs complaining about attacks from the so-called "centrists" within the Democrat Party. Certainly I am an agreement with the absurdity of referring to someone like Jack Murtha or Howard Dean as on the "far left" to the extent that such a term is meaningful. That gets me thinking though of a different but related question: where would I go to find a viable, organized leftist party - one that could field candidates and/or play a role in national politics? We can find the occasional prominent nominally socialist politician either in the House or soon-to-be in the Senate, but in order to function, that individual must caucus with one of the two parties that rule DC with an iron fist. Otherwise, leftist sightings seem to be rarer than Big Foot sightings in Death Valley. But I digress.

A lot of us call ourselves "leftists". I wonder sometimes how we're defining the term, and I wonder more about what exactly we do have in American politics. When I think of a "leftist" I'm likely to think along the lines of the myriad forms of anarchism, to the various forms of communism, (ranging from classical Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite, Maoist, etc.), socialism (be it the populist socialism advocated and practiced by Hugo Chavez to the sort adhered to by European Social Democrat parties). Although these various "leftisms" diverge in terms of the relationship between person and state (e.g., for the anarchists there is ideally no state), there is as I see it a great deal of overlap in terms of their shared views of the relation between people (cooperative rather than competitive) and in their shared distrust of capitalism in its numerous forms (from "pure" laissez-faire capitalism, to fascist capitalism, to neo-liberal globalism).

If we take the above as a decent quick-and-dirty description of "leftism" that leads to the question of where this "leftism" resides in the US. My short answer, as I've stated elsewhere: nowhere any more. I'm definitely not alone in my assessment (and those are just the comments on the margins of the Big Box Blogs - go outside the big boxes, and one will surely find more).

So what are we left with? One major party that currently controls the White House (and until January both Congressional chambers) that looks strikingly like the UK's British National Party or Germany's National Democratic Party and another major party that looks strikingly like the UK's Conservative Party (i.e., Tories) or Germany's Christian Democratic Union. In other words, our politics nationally is distinctively right-wing, with a range of choices limited to right-wing hardliners (GOP) to somewhat more moderate populists and globalists (Democrats). Our "center" in the US seems to be those Democrats who have bought into the whole neoliberalism theory and practice hook, line, and sinker; those espousing somewhat more populist approaches to governing and economy tend to get labeled as "left-wing extremists" by respectable pundits. No one from either party dares question the wisdom of corporate capitalism, varying only in flavor (neoliberal globalism is the favorite of the DLC crowd and the some of the GOP crowd; some form of populist capitalism is espoused by some elements of both the Dem and Republican parties, usually in the latter tied to taking a hard line on immigration and ethnic minorities; still others would like a Mussoliniesque fascist capitalism, which to a degree fits the neocons and assorted others mainly in the GOP; and of course there are still a few good old fashioned laissez-faire capitalists who comprise the libertarian element within the GOP). Some might be a bit more favorable to organized labor or to providing some sort of financial safety net for those in need, but regardless, capitalism is a sacred cow.

Nor is there any real question about the "necessity" of a vast military in order to pursue the building of empire (some may voice uneasiness about that word) as "we" continue to take on "the white man's burden" of bringing "democracy" to the "uncivilized" dark corners of the planet. Some may vary in the degree to which military force should be actually used in the process of maintaining and expanding hegemony, but there is little quibbling over the "exceptional" character of our nation as the government to varying degrees bombs and starves others competing for whatever resources "we" covet.

As for the Big Box Blogs, my short take is that they could be considered "leftist" only if one thinks within the framework of Beltway elites. DK, BT, MLW, etc. are best thought of one a broader level as Tory blogs in which there may be a bit more room for populism and a bit less preference for bombs. But "leftist"? If anything, as many of us have learned the hard way, the left is, well, left out.

Footnote to "What is 'progressive' politics anyway?"

I've been increasingly uncomfortable with the terms "progressive" and "progressivism" over the last few years, and thought I'd share with you all some of the intellectual basis of my discomfort. Following is a quote from a Ward Churchill essay "The New Face of Liberation" which appeared in a book called Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader. The essay was originally given as a talk in 1998:

Most of us here identify ourselves as "progressives", so let's start with the term "progressivism" itself. We don't really have time available to go into this very deeply, but I'll just observe that it comes from the word "progress," and that the progression involved is basically to start with what is already here and carry it forward.

The underlying premise is that the social order we were born into results from the working of "iron laws" of evolution and, however unpalatable, is therefore both necessary and inevitable. By the same token, these same deterministic forces make it equally unavoidable that what we've inherited can and will be improved upon. The task of progressives, having apprehended the nature of the progression, is to use their insights to hurry things along.

This isn't a "liberal" articulation. It's what's been passing itself off as a radical left alternative to the status quo for well over a century. It forms the very core of Marx's notion of historical materialism, as when he observes that feudalism was the social precondition for the emergence of capitalism and that capitalism is itself the essential precondition for what he conceives as socialism. Each historical phases creates the conditions for the next; that's the crux of the progressive proposition.

Now you tell me, how is that fundamentally different from what Bush and Clinton have been advocating? Oh, I see. You want to "move forward" in pursuance of another set of goals and objectives than those espoused by these self-styled "centrists." Alright. I'll accept that as true. Let me also state that I tend to find the goals and objectives advanced by progressives immensely preferable to anything advocated by Bush or Clinton. Fair enough?

However, I must go on to observe that the differences at issue are not fundamental. They are not, as Marx would have put it, of "the base." Instead, they are superstructural. They represent remedies to symptoms rather than causes. In other words, they do not derive from a genuinely radical critique of our situation - remember, radical means to go to the root of any phenomenon in order to understand it - and thus cannot offer a genuinely radical solution. This will remain true regardles of the fervor with which progressive goals and objectives are embraced, or the extremity by which they are pursued. Radicalism and extremism are, after all, not really synonyms.

Maybe I can explain what I'm getting at here by way of indulging in a sort of grand fantasy. Close your eyes for a moment and dream along with me that the current progressive agenda has been realized. Never mind how, let's just dream that it's been fulfilled. Things like racism, sexism, ageism, militarism, classism, and the sorts of corporatism with which we are now afflicted have been abolished. The police have been leashed and the prison-industrial complex dismantled. Income disparities have been eliminated across the board, decent housing and healthcare are available to all, an amply endowed educational system is actually devoted to teaching rather than indoctrinating our children. The whole nine yards.

Sound good? You bet. Nonetheless, there's still a very basic - and I daresay uncomfortable - question which must be posed: In this seemingly rosy scenario, what, exactly, happens to the rights of native peoples? Face it, to envision the progressive transformation of "American society" is to presuppose that "America" - that is, the United States - will continue to exist. And, self-evidently, the existence of the United States is, as it has always been and must always be, predicated first and foremost on the denial of the right of self-determining existence to every indigenous nation within its purported borders.

Absent this denial, the very society progressives seek to transform would never have had a landbase upon wich to constitute itself in any form at all. So, it would have had no resources with whcih to actualize a mode of production, and there would be no basis for arranging or rearranging the relations of production. All the dominoes fall from there, don't they? In effect, the progressive agenda is no less contingent upon the continuing internal colonial domination of indigenous nations than that advocated by Bill Clinton.

Perhaps we can agree to a truism on this score: Insofar as progressivism shares with the status quo a need to maintain the structure of colonial dominance over native peoples, it is at base no more than a variation on a common theme, intrinsically a part of the very order it claims to oppose. As Vine Deloria once observed in a related connection, "these guys just keep right on circling the same old rock while calling it by different names."

Since, for all its liberatory rhetoric and sentiment, even the self-sacrifice of its proponents, progressivism replicates the bedrock relations with indigenous nations marking the present status quo, its agenda can be seen as serving mainly to increase the degree of comfort experienced by those who benefit from such relations. Any such outcome represents a continuation and reinforcement of the existing order, not its repeal. Progressivism is thus one possible means of consummating that which is, not its negation.

Some food for thought as the latest discussion, if you will, on what is or isn't progressivism unfolds at BT and MLW.

What is 'progressive' politics anyway?

Ever since I jumped on board the Daily Kos online ship a couple of years ago, the biggest site for 'progressives', I've been asking myself that question. And I have yet to find an answer.

I erroneously thought the 'progressive' Democrats or lefties were liberals like me. Even Daily Kos is often referred to a 'liberal' site in the MSM, despite the fact that kos has self-identified as a 'Libertarian Democrat' - which is the topic of his next book. As for the rest of the kossacks, my perception is that the majority are far more centrist than liberal.

On Sunday, Booman wrote about embracing conservatives under the big tent of the Democratic party (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong in that summary):

In the long run we need the Democratic Party to be huge. But in order for it to be huge, it cannot be as ideologically pure as it is now. It has to be more nebulous and its appeal has to be populist. That's what I meant when I said I'd like to see a Congress more like the ones under LBJ. No, I don't want to welcome back segregationists. I want to win back conservative values voters by improving their wages, their education, their health care, their pensions, and their environment.

He also hopes for more moderate Republicans so there can be more bipartisan middle ground. That may be ideal (for some) but in the current political climate, it doesn't appear to be very attainable and liberals don't necessarily find that desirable since they'll be stuck with representatives in Centrist Land which invites more Joe Liebermans - not less of them.

Last week, pyrrho wrote a diary about this phenomenon. Here's what he thinks about luring conservatives into the Democratic party:

That is a goal that will fail, again, know why? Because the problem is people like Webb... the problem is conservative ideas themselves. They suck. They are not good for the nation. They claim to be about XYZ, but are really about death, self-destruction, and potholes. It wasn't really just that Stalin didn't get a chance to really try his ideas, Stalinism was bad! It isn't that the Republicans have fallen off the golden path illuminated by the glowing footsteps of Reagan, it's that it FOLLOWED that path, and it leads to ruin, emotional and material.

Of course, since I am a liberal, I agree wholeheartedly.

Which brings me back to my original question: what is 'progressive' politics anyway? Is it the big tent, 'grab 'em where you find 'em' type of ideology to broaden the base of the Democratic party? Is it a movement towards more widespread liberalism? Is it somewhere in between in Centrist Land?

Is Red Dan right when he says:

The views held by liberals are actually MORE popular in this nation than the views held by conservatives or moderates.

It is about time that ONE of the political parties reflected that.

If we do so effectively, we will win MORE seats.

I know that's true in Canada...

So what is 'progressive' politics?

SYFPH! No, you SYFPH!

I must say that when I was a regular reader and participant at Daily Kos during the 2004 election, I was somewhat amazed by the SYFPH (Shut Your Fucking Pie Hole) phenomenon. Once John Kerry was the presidential candidate, discussion of any of his faults was severely criticized by those who believed that any complaints about him should be withheld until after the election.

That atmosphere, of course, brought with it some SYFPH wars between those who wanted to practice their right to free speech - no matter how close to election time it was - and those who preferred the happy cheerleader routine. So, I just watched from the sidelines and SMFPH about the whole scenario even though I believed anyone should be able to write about whatever they wanted to - positive or negative. I'm not one of those who reacts well to authoritarian-type discipline. Quel surprise.

Anyway, the past fews days have seen quite the revolt on Daily Kos - against kos - whose has been the victim of more SYFPH demands than I've seen there in a while. (I'm not a regular reader there anymore, so I may have missed one or more SYFPH wars in the recent past). I won't post links to all of the relevant diaries but this one and the attached comments sums up what happened. Kos gave up on Ford. Kossacks got mad and told him to SHFPH. Some believed that maybe kos was using reverse psychology when he said that the Ford race was all but lost (that justification is known as 'denial') and many others accused kos of abandoning what he'd written about in his book Crashing The Gates.

On and on it went. And on and on it still goes. Oh, the anxiety.

Maybe it's just me - and it's true that Daily Kos isn't my site - but it would seem that this whole SYFPH belief is causing a wee bit of a problem. While I'm of the opinion that kos still doesn't seem to understand the political clout he has and thus perhaps shouldn't have voiced his opinion against Ford so close to election time, I also believe in being honest. It's a fine line but, in this case, I'm not exactly with the SYFPH crowd who throughout the year write kos off as 'just the guy who owns the site, so he doesn't really matter because it's the rest of us who count' and then have a complete blowout when he writes something that pisses them off because they believe he may have caused the death knell in Ford's run. I'm probably more on the side who are fighting hard to get Ford elected (regardless of what I think about Ford) who feel like they've been slapped in the face by kos's remarks. That's personal and I don't blame them for feeling let down.

Since Daily Kos came into existence, the site members and kos still haven't been able to measure its political impact. Sometimes, members give the site far more credit than it deserves as far as its influence goes. Other times, they minimize it. Sometimes, kos is just that guy who owns the site. Other times, when he appears in the MSM, he is their dear hero of a leader. It's an odd dynamic.

And then there are the fights over topics - thou shalt not write about election fraud lest thou be labeled a 'fraudster'. Yet, the most crucial concern of people who live in a democracy ought to be to ensure that every vote is counted. And anything that comes near to the definition of conspiracy is definitely out, even though many such conspiracies actually do have some truth to them. Wasn't the Jeff Gannon affair a conspiracy type of topic to begin with? A gay hooker in the WH press corps? Who would have believed that?

In the end though, Daily Kos is what it is and if people want to participate there, they know they do so under limited parameters. It's unfortunate, however, that so much time is wasted with things like SYFPH wars and other meta issues but that is the direct result of the attempts to strictly control the environment. There will always be rebels but we don't last very long in places where our minority opinions are attacked by a loud majority who prefer strict discipline to freedom of expression.

P.S.: Anyone who disagrees with what I've written in this post can just SYFPH. :)

Who or What Really Sucks?

It's not that any particular blogger 'sucks'. It's that anyone who uses their free speech rights to criticize what those bloggers write are the ones who 'suck'.

Any questions?

And, as far as sucking goes, here's what really sucks:

“Most people think life sucks, and then you die. Not me. I beg to differ. I think life sucks, then you get cancer, then your dog dies, your wife leaves you, the cancer goes into remission, you get a new dog, you get remarried, you owe ten million dollars in medical bills but you work hard for thirty-five years and you pay it back and then -- one day -- you have a massive stroke, your whole right side is paralyzed, you have to limp along the streets and speak out of the left side of your mouth and drool but you go into rehabilitation and regain the power to walk and the power to talk and then -- one day -- you step off a curb at Sixty-seventh Street, and BANG you get hit by a city bus and then you die. Maybe.”
- Denis Leary

Daily Kos Cozies up to Chevron

Yes, that was an ad for Chevron. Chevron. On Daily Kos.

It was there one minute and now it's gone.

There was quite the little discussion about that Chevron ad, including the infamous 'Start your own fucking Blog' in response to the diarist's complaint about the ad being on the site and the usual defence of 'but Markos needs the money!'.

Yes. Complain about a corporation that has committed grievous human rights abuses and you'd better SYFPH or just buy a subscription to make those pesky dkos ads disappear because the biggest so-called progressive blog can shill for whoever the hell it wants to.

The petrochemical company Chevron is guilty of some of the worst environmental and human rights abuses in the world. From 1964 to 1992, Texaco (which transferred operations to Chevron after being bought out in 2001) unleashed a toxic "Rainforest Chernobyl" in Ecuador by leaving more than 600 unlined oil pits in pristine northern Amazon rainforest and dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic production water into rivers used for bathing water. The toxic crude oil and formation water seeped into the subsoil, contaminating surrounding freshwater and farmland. As a result, local communities have suffered severe health effects, including cancer, skin lesions, birth defects, and spontaneous abortions. Indigenous communities have been dispossessed of their lands, and millions of hectares of rainforest have been destroyed to make way for the company's pipelines and oil wells.

Chevron is also responsible for the violent repression of nonviolent opposition to oil extraction. In Nigeria, Chevron has collaborated with the Nigerian police and military who have opened fire on peaceful protestors who oppose oil extraction in the Niger Delta. In 1998, two indigenous Ilaje activists were killed by Nigerian military officers flown in by the company while protesting at an oil platform in Ondo state. In 1999, two people from Opia village were killed by military personnel paid by Chevron, after soliciting a meeting to complain about the company's harmful effects on local fishing. And in 2005, Nigerian soldiers fired upon protestors at Escravos oil terminal, leaving one protestor dead.

Additionally Chevron is responsible for widespread health problems in Richmond, California, where one of Chevron's largest refineries is located. Processing 350,000 barrels of oil a day, the Richmond refinery produces oil flares and toxic waste in the Richmond area. As a result, local residents suffer from high rates of lupus, skin rashes, rheumatic fever, liver problems, kidney problems, tumors, cancer, asthma, and eye problems.

In December 2004, the Unocal Corporation, which recently became a subsidiary of Chevron, settled a lawsuit filed by 15 Burmese villagers, in which the villagers alleged Unocal's complicity in a range of human rights violations in Burma, including rape, summary execution, torture, forced labor and forced migration. Despite the settlement, human rights abuses continue along the oil pipeline in Burma, which is still "secured" by the Burmese military. Chevron is responsible for the risks associated with this pipeline.

A proud sponsor of Daily Kos! Won't you join them?

Update: 14.11.2006 kos has finally addressed this issue. Bottom line: controversial ads can stay.

Some Comic Relief From Lewis Black