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.

Quotable: Meta-Edition

Madman in the Marketplace over at Marisacat's blog:

Like Robert Neville, we are LEGEND, and while we stalk the virtual land no Donklephant, or their thralls, fanboys and blogmaids, are safe.

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.)

Showdown by the Bay: Sheehan vs. Pelosi

You may have read that Cindy Sheehan is considering running against current House Speaker Nancy "Impeachment Is Off The Table" Pelosi in next year's election. First, a quick snip of the AssPress article - courtesy of Marisacat:

Sheehan Considers Challenge to Pelosi
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — Cindy Sheehan, the soldier’s mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.
Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That’s when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group’s war protest site near Bush’s Crawford ranch.

Not too surprisingly, since Ms. Sheehan has been known to frequent Daily Kos, she announced her intentions over there, with the predictable result: a lot of partisan Democrat whining, including the usual dross about her writing a "troll diary," and of course the usual effort by current and former DK front-pagers to show her the door.

What has happened is that the Dems couldn't "contain" Ms. Sheehan. Let's go back to two years ago, when Stan Goff said (circa August 2005):

The Democrats are already grooming a few 2008 candidates, including the execrable Hillary Rodham Clinton who has stated her desire to beef up the war against Southwest Asia. Let's not forget that her husband presided over an Iraqi holocaust that George W. Bush is still trying to match. The Republicans are secure for now with their white nationalist popular base. An active and increasingly militant left is a more immediate threat to the Democrats ­ who have prospered from Republican reaction for decades now by capturing social bases that feel they have nowhere else to go. That dilemma is real, but it is also predicated on the notion that to "go there" we need to contain ourselves in electoralism and pluralist policy fights that are engineered by corporations and NGOs.
That's why Sheehan and others who propose the radical option of simply leaving Iraq are now being surrounded by the friendly faces of "progressives" who will try and redirect this newfound mobilization along the acceptable policy-debate paths.

Something I said from around the same time:

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. And that, as I see it is the real problem with the Dems. The "base" that the party takes for granted has no clue as to what the Dem party actually stands for. Folks periodically ask me what the Dems believe, and I have to say in all honesty that God only knows, and I'm sure even He is a bit puzzled. What we do know is that the Dem party leadership falls hook, line, and sinker for whatever b.s. the White House demands for fear of being labeled "obstructionist," "unpatriotic," and possibly "losing next year's election." That isn't exactly an inspiring approach to representative governing.
Cindy Sheehan has done something that the Dems have largely failed to do with regard to Iraq: she asked the question "why are we there?" If the Dems want to capitalize on the increasing dissatisfaction with the war, they would be well advised to ride the wave of dissent rather than try to contain it. Adding more troops (impractical) and looking for ways to exit with "dignity" (a term that in this context smells of American machismo) aren't going to cut it. Besides, to take an a line or two from an old David Bowie tune, "dignity is valuable, but our lives are valuable too." Tell it straight up: it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought for the wrong reasons; and it's high time to get the hell out and stop making even more of a mess of things in the region. There are no good reasons for Americans or Iraqis to keep dying. The party might generate some cross words from the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world as a result, but that would have happened any way. In the process, the Dems might even gain a bit of the respect and trust that they've lost over the last couple decades. Otherwise, folks like me (just one of the "base") will keep on eying the third party scene for a better deal.

I'm sure at some point at one of the various gated community blogs I predicted that Cindy Sheehan's days at Daily Kos would be numbered; once it became readily apparent that Ms. Sheehan was not going to toe a Democrat Party line, she'd become expendable. The rumblings that she'd worn out her welcome at Big Orange were there for a while - now it's out in the open. In truth, the anti-war movement was useful to Dems only to the extent that anti-war voters might help the party get Congressional majorities and perhaps successfully recapture the White House. Once we stop being ATM machines for the Dems and various affiliated groups (e.g., MoveOn), then that bunch of goons simply doesn't want to know us.

Certainly I don't delude myself to think that Sheehan has a snowball's chance in Death Valley of unseating Pelosi. One: it's not entirely clear what her campaign will be about (beyond the Iraq War). Two: even if Sheehan gets it together as far as a coherent candidacy goes, there are more than enough Vichy "progressives" willing to give Pelosi sufficient cover to win in 2008. If nothing else, a Sheehan candidacy against Pelosi would serve to highlight Pelosi's many embarrassing failures as a so-called leader - in and of itself that would be valuable.

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.

A Poor Blogger's Foundation?

So, remember the other day when I wrote about [employable] bloggers complaining about their own poverty and what I thought about that? (Of course you do. You all read everything I write all the time and commit it to memory. I know. There will be a quiz later). Well, anyway, it appears Susie at Suburban Guerilla has been thinking about that issue too and has actually taken some steps to do something about it:

Jim’s death has made me realize that, despite the yes, millions of dollars and untold hours of volunteer support the left blogosphere has thrown the way of the Democratic party, they will never, ever, ever give us anything more than a pat on the back. “Isn’t that cute? They think they’re special.”

I don’t know what it is about liberal groups whose leaders assume you should live on air while you give your life to the cause. Has it even occurred to them how much harder it is to get a “regular” job when you’re publicly and politically active? I guess not. After all, they’re already employed.

I'm sorry. There were some Democratic bloggers who were actually expecting money from the party or "liberal groups"? Ummm, what?

They don’t really understand that the blogosphere is effective because it works like a swarm of bees. Yes, we have some queen bees, but you need the entire hive stinging from every direction in order to make it work. And to do that, you need to take care of the hive.

And they - the powers that be - Susie, have discovered that the worker bees are more than willing to do their stinging for free. So what else is there for them to understand?

Jim wasn’t unusual. I can name at least a dozen well-known bloggers off the top of my head that are in dire straits financially. I know several with health conditions that could become critical at any moment, and like me, they’re living without health insurance, the Sword of Damocles dangling over their heads.

And you know what? I'm all for donating to bloggers who are unable to work because they are sick. Note what I said in my previous post to the "I want sympathy because I blog and I'm a poor but employable" person, however. Although you noted above that your political activism may make it difficult for you in the real job world, that certainly depends on the type of job you're hoping to land, doesn't it? Not all employers care about your politics and, afaik, they're not even supposed to ask about your leanings. (That's how it works here in Canada anyway.)

So Susie has a plan:

And so I am talking to lawyers about putting together a non-profit to help progressive bloggers. Not, as some groups offer, to help them organize for the Democratic party - to help them personally. I plan to recruit every blogger I can for the effort. One local blogger is working right now to put together a concert benefit with a big name.

Ask the obvious question. I'll wait.

Exactly: whom will that concert benefit? Who will that non-profit group benefit? Which "progressive bloggers"? And why? What's the criteria to receive donations?

If you can't answer those questions now, you have a huge problem already.

In closing, let me leave you with a comment from that blog in response to Susie's post that makes another obvious point:

# frank costa Says:
July 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Your assumption [is] that sitting at a keyboard and sharing your insights, opinions, and surfing discoveries is akin to some sort of hero status.

I was a politicial and social acttivist on the trail of the NWO decades before keyboard kommandos came into being. I’ve got a mouthful of bad teeth, I live in an RV and I am dissed by just about every yuppie “activist” I run into.

While I am in support of your passion you have to take a reality pilll…the easiest thing in the world regarding “activism” is to sit a keyboard and rant about stuff. The hardest is to get off one’s butt and take it to the source.

Only 100,000 of us nationwide marched against the war a while back, which is about one tenth of the bloggers on the web. We all know what’s wrong and what has to be done and daily doses of incremental info isn’t necessary and obviously not very effective.

Get a million activists to show up in DC demanding impeachment and not respect the “free speech” zones or get permits, or even say please…that’s activism, not web chat.

That’s my nickle.

What he said.

Sidebar: Wasn't Bowers talking about a similar foundation or PAC to help poor bloggers as well? What happened to that? Why is it that the PA bloggers seem to be the ones bringing this issue up all of the time? No jobs there? High cost of living? Something in the water?

Hey! Here's an idea: maybe the PA bloggers could just all rent one big house and share living expenses. On the other hand, maybe that's too much of a "hippie commune" type of idea for that bunch. They do seem fairly conservative. I can't really picture BooMan braiding Atrios' hair (thankfully).

Update: There's also a discussion about this at Crooks and Liars.
 

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.
 

June 26th was Torture Awareness Day: Where were the Big Box Blogs?

One wonders. Finding front-page content (even diaries for that matter) of relevance regarding one of the major human rights crises of our times would be like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Let's see. MyDD? Silence. Just polls, polls, and more polls.

My Left Wing? One can hear the sound of crickets chirping.

Daily Kos? Barely a peep. The closest we get to anything from the front-pagers is a brief mention of one of Valtin's diaries (hell, might as well go to his blog which should be a must-read to begin with).

Booman Tribune? Be thankful for Steven D., who does at least cover some anti-torture news; and a slightly belated post from Larry Johnson.

I might quote something from a blogger called Death and the Maiden - a new (as of this month) anti-torture blog - that pretty well sums things up:

What? You didn't know? You haven't heard?

Yeah. How 'bout that, huh?

Today's the tenth "International Day in Support of Victims of Torture." It was designated by the UN General Assembly as an annual commemoration of the ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture (20 years ago today). But apparently not too many, including the United Nations, give a rat's ass. You won't hear about it from the mainstream media, and the UN didn't even bother to put it on this year's calendar.

Disappeared. The International Day in Support of Desaparecidos is now itself a desaparecido.

Almost disappeared, that is. The good folks at Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition have events scheduled in Washington DC. Take a look at their web page and sign on to their petition to repeal the 2006 Military Commissions Act.

And after you do that, start making every day Torture Awareness Day in your local community. Check the links in the sidebar of this blog. They have lots of good ideas to help you get started. Don't let torture awareness slide down the chupadero.

Just sayin'.

CALL FOR A DECISION ABOUT MO BETTA

As one who's name in on the list of contributers to this blog, who remembers well what it once was, and who considered it's founder, Ductape, a personal friend, I am not ok with letting this blog die a long, lingering, messy death.

This was never intended to be some online back alley where individuals drag each other to beat each other up. It once had the purpose of bringing all of us who didn't "fit well " on the mainstream blogs together, so we could discuss and learn from meta issues and how things are out there for all of us who are not easily accepted elsewhere..(us "others") I followed friends here who had been kicked out of other places, because I valued them so much, (whether I always agreed with them or not) and did not want to lose them, ever.

Thats not what this blog is anymore and it hasn't been that for a long time now. To see it deteriorate as it has feels very disrespectful (in my eyes) to it's absent founder, and to it's original worthy purpose. For me, it's just plain painful to watch this.

James and others have tried to keep it going, but it seems to me Mo Betta has completed the purpose for which it was conceived and it's time to let it go now with some dignity, and maybe even the honor of sharing of some of the good memories of what it's meant to those of us who were here in it's good days, when Ductape was still with us.

I hope those still on the masthead will respond to this, and others who once cared about this blog will share their feelings also, so we can make some kind of shared decision together. To perfectly frank, I have very little hope that we, as a group are likely to be able to work closely enough together to make this blog a viable useful place of discourse at this point.

More Donkle Cluelessness

Starting with this news blurb:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Democratic-led Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war.

This is reflected in polls that show Congress -- plagued by partisan bickering mostly about the war -- at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it.

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."

[snip]

"If Democrats fail to reverse course, the dynamics in the 2008 elections may shift significantly, allowing Republicans to run as the party of change ... only two years after Democrats successfully campaigned on that same theme," Senate Republican leaders told their ranks in a letter last week.

My emphasis added. Now of course, there are some Donkle partisans who indeed seem shocked (shocked, I tell ya) that the Dems could be swept into majorities in the House and Senate (the former with a solid majority, the latter with a much more tenuous grip on power) and then sit on their arses rather than do something substantive to end the Iraq debacle, etc. A lot of it amounts to many of the Dems being on the same page as the Rethugs when it comes to the maintenance of empire, but I digress. Get past the shock and outrage that a number of disappointed voters are expressing via the internet tubes and we can find a number of die-hard partisans to tell us that everything will be just peachy-keen.

Example 1:

67. I say this is BS

The approval rating of Congress is down because the Republic [sic] senators are standing in the way of ending the war and real progress. Republic [sic] legislators act as if they are not involved in this support of the Iraq occupation, as if they hadn't been involved in rubber stamping all things bush for years. Rove managed to rig just enough senate seats to split the senate and keep the "Do Nothing Congress" as a shield.

If we got all these republic [sic] politicians out of the way, we could make some progress. Republic politicians are standing in the way of progress and are trying to blame Democratic leaders for their rubber stamp of all things bush.

Yeah, it's all the Rethugs' fault for the Dimocrat cave-in on the supplemental war funding bill, the failure to get a no-confidence vote on AG Gonzo, the failure to impeach the Lush/Zany regime, etc.

Example 2:

54. I thought I'd heard everything in the twilight zone of disillusionment...

"If Democrats fail to reverse course, the dynamics in the 2008 elections may shift significantly, allowing Republicans to run as the party of change ... only two years after Democrats successfully campaigned on that same theme," Senate Republican leaders told their ranks in a letter last week.

Give those "Senate Republican leaders" a big dose of reality.

I'm disgusted as anyone that the boy king of corruption has been given a free ride, but the wrath should be also be directed at these "Senate Republican leaders" and their rubber-stamping yes-men for the boy king. Get real.

(Please, Al Gore & Wes Clark: step up to the plate; I've got lots of enthusiasm bottled up with nowhere to go.)

This commenter is slightly more sane, but still all blame on the GOP, and then some wishful thinking that Al Gore and war criminal Wes Clark will "step up to the plate"?

Example 3:

8. bullshit

the rubber stamp republicans are blocking everything.

Keep telling yourself that, kiddo.

Example 4:

2. I'm withholding judgment until September

when Stupid has to come begging for his WAH again. If the Democrats don't point to the unmet benchmarks from May as proof that the war is an unwinnable fiasco and insist on a timetable for withdrawal, they will be finished. They will lose in 2008.

It doesn't matter how many times Stupid vetoes those timetables.

They have to be sent and the Democrats have to insist upon them.

If they don't, people will stay home in 2008 and the fundies will control another election.

At least this one gets that disillusioned voters will sit out 2008. Whether enough sit out to actually cost a Donkle victory at the polls is another matter, as I suspect a substantial number of the currently "disappointed" will go on believing that if only their party has larger majorities that suddenly we'll get a more "progressive" domestic and foreign policy.

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.

Inane commentary of the week award

John Arivosis of Americablog deserves the honor:

Dennis Kucinich and Gravel are just annoying.

Sez you. Any thoughts about what either one of them had to say? Didn't think so.

Yeah, I get it, some of you like Kucinich. And that's nice. Joe likes his dog Boomer too.

Patronize much? Again, any thoughts on the content of Kucinich's remarks at the debate?

It doesn't mean he should be on stage with the real candidates. Kucinich has zero chance of winning, as does Gravel - they shouldn't be on the stage taking time from the serious candidates.

On the contrary - Kucinich and Gravel are arguably the only serious candidates there (in terms of saying something). Oh wait - John means "serious" in terms of raising gobs of corporate cash and playing "emperor" should any of those goons actually get "elected." My bad.

Though, oddly, and disturbingly, a number of us at our debate party last night found ourselves agreeing with Gravel repeatedly. It was creepy.

Like, oh my gawd! Like, the next thing you know, we might be agreeing with the person who called orange the new pink (and whoever said that was like totally deranged). Ewww.

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.
 

So 80% of blogs contain "offensive" content

As an editorial response, Mo Betta META points our readers to the following audio presentation: The Fucking Moon, by The Evolution Control Committee.

Or, if you prefer, here's a video via YouTube:

New features at Mo Betta META

We're now using Haloscan for comments. It has some features that make it better than the old Blogger comment feature. We've also effectively frozen the ability to comment via Blogger, although anything that's already been posted will remain displayed for posterity (and there was much rejoicing!). For shits and giggles, we've also got a trackback link for each post just in case you feel like you can't live without us knowing what you're saying on your blogs.

Otherwise, it's your dime. Spill it.

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.)
 

Alternative to What, Exactly ?

[This here's a post from an online feminist pal of long-standing: Nelsolidarida. She hails from England, is an Anarchist, a vegan, and also keeps an avenging army of magical ducks. So don't cross her. She also likes to knit garments and household goods featuring skulls and Deadly Nightshade. I am re-posting this with a few tiny edits and with her express permission, because I love it. A lot of it relates well to online discussion though her main focus in the piece is on IRL events and interactions. Her home page can be found at Solidarida, of course. Enjoy !-- ms_xeno ]

Ok, so i'm out of the 'no blogging while supposed to be working' phase and into a 'maybe this will give me some writing practice and wake my brain up' phase. Don't know how long it will last...

Anyway, 'alternative'. What does it mean? (feel free to contribute here) I don't know what my 'alternative' credentials are, or if i have any. I certainly don't look alternative most of the time. But i'm not convinced i fit the evil, capitalist, tory, tankist, stalinist pig-dog mould that seems to be, if you like, the alternative to alternative.

Know what? I don't hate activists. If you're reading this and i speak to you, bother to engage with you at any level, ever agree with you on anything, etc, then chances are i don't hate you. I don't hate most individual activists, or most of the movements/campaigns i have any common ground with. I don't even hate animal rights activists. I just happen to be around them more and have more scope to be annoyed. Plus, my feelings about particular people or groups don't have a lot of bearing on how I see the issues they represent. I don't stop being a feminist because I'm pissed off with the endless blog wars and general vindictive behaviour, neither are my views on porn changed because certain anti-porn bloggers have behaved obnoxiously at any point. (again, if you're bothering to read this, I probably don't mean you.)

Genuine political convictions, especially ones i agree with, I have no problem with. Unless we're talking BNP-type stuff, natch. [British National Party aka Far Right-Wingers -- ms_xeno] What I do have a huge problem with is the 'scene' that emerges around these, and the policing that goes with that. Yeah, not everyone can go on every demo. Live with it. Stick your guilt trip where the sun doesn't shine. (Seriously, it doesn't shine from there.) Sorry if that sounds bitter. Unless you're one of the people who does this, all. the. time. In which case I'm not remotely sorry.

Also, policing of this sort is unnecessary unless someone's job is totally contradictory to the campaign with which they're getting involved. Or unless it is at odds with having any kind of social conscience. For example, if someone makes electroshock batons, they deserve to be ostracized by everyone except the out-and-out Neo-Nazis who get turned on by such things. Otherwise, maybe excluding somebody from "the movement" because of the job that provides their food and shelter isn't a good thing.

Conversely, geting all single-issue, this is all that matters, everyone else is shit including other activists, is also not a way to get people around to your point of view. No, being a vegan and going to demos doesn't excuse the fact that your mate likes to beat the crap out of his girlfriend. And the person who misses demos because the guy who abused her is there? Maybe not the one you need to crap on.

But the really annoying thing is the people who get all suspicious because you don't 'look' alternative. Newsflash, folks - police informers generally try to blend in. Fake nose studs and all. They have been known to provide a nice little comedy turn at demos when they are really obvious. So maybe, if this is your real reason for looking askance at the person who comes in straight from work in clothes that they wear for a relatively straight job, you could be looking the wrong way. But maybe that isn't why? Guess what. I did look alternative for a long time. I did a long, long, stint of being bullied for it, as well as for having the ideas that went with it. I've had meat waved in my face and attempts made to cut my dreads off from behind. And guess what else? My basic principles haven't changed. The only caving-in was in my own perception of myself - from worth something to worth pretty much nothing. Happy? I hope so, because i've experienced nearly as much grief over being the odd one out in an activist community where i agree with most people on most points as i did in the same position in a group of rather shallow teenagers.

I'm not going to turn into one of those boring people who tells activists that they'll never get their message across if they don't smarten up. Long as i don't see you wearing fur, which is a whole other thing, i seriously don't have a problem. But, please, don't turn being alternative into yet another form of conformity. Closed communities don't change the world. -- Nelsolidarida, April 9th, 2007.