So Much For Solidarity: That Comments Policy Revised & Expanded, And Other Bloggy Digressions

To make Martin’s terse announcement below a little more multilateral and a little less unconsultatory and patriarchal (let’s practice what we preach) here’s my view on it.

I’m not a moderation fan, unless the blatant trollery gets really bad; what’s an argument without opposition? But that seems unlikely given our current level of comments, so I regard initial moderation as a currently necessary but temporary experiment. In my case “moderated’ boils down to “Are you a fuckwit or not?” which is a subjective standard, I admit. But Blogger is free (or at least the front-end is, the back-end is that Google owns you) so if you have a firm opinion of whatever stripe, you can add your voice to the cacophony.

I do wish more people would blog: there are so many sharp and incisive commenters out there that the world could do with hearing more from.

I do hope that potential political bloggers are not being disouraged from using their voices because of what a certain element in center-left (and that only by warped right-wing big media standards) US political bloggers have been up to lately. Using their predominant market power to skew the blogging market by exorcising censorship blogroll amnesty on their blogrolls, they are, in essence, acting as a cartel to knock out potential competitors for future Democratic political funding.

My evidence for this is admittedly circumstantial, but nevertheless compelling.

Post the Edwards blogger brouhaha the Kool Kidz of ‘leet blogging seem to have been conducting something of a purge.

The big US political blogs, the ones that are run as business concerns for their owners – recently described by Max Sawicky as also “a mostly brainless vacuum cleaner of donations for the Democratic Party” – have been divesting themselves of connections with what they apparently consider to be ‘lesser’ bloggers. What ‘lesser’ is in this case is hazily defined: it seems to be a combination of readership level, shade of opinion and the vehemence with which that opinion is expressed. Teh Kool Kidz might protest to the contrary, but the bloggers who have been cut certainly see themselves as being dropped for having inconvenient opinions. (And to some of those jettisoned it actually means a drop in vital ad income.)

Neither site has a blogroll even close to being in the thousands, but thousands of bloggers link TO them. I have seen many of these links from little blogs that for some reason feel compelled to put kos on their blog roll. It does them absolutely no good, but it’s great for kos.

Let’s turn the tables and talk about equality. Suppose YOUR site just happens to have a good post, will it ever see the light of day on kos? Of course not, that is unless you sign on to be a “diarist.” That’s why reciprocity is important. If you list the kos site, even though he won’t list yours, he makes money. And you? You are as much a sucker as someone playing the slots in a casino.

In what was once the blogoshere, there was a certain etiquette, that, although unwritten, revolved around reciprocity. I list your blog, you list mine. In blogdom, that is gone. With little money to go around-and some bloggers, feeling that money even corrupted the process-what made the blogosphere function was an evolving cooperative community. Like all communities it had its quirks and certainly its share of eccentric characters but it also had folks like the Wampum site that publishes the Koufax awards and sites like Crooks and Liars and My Left Wing that saw as part of their mission to encourage new voices and to recognize those of us out on the fringe. Maryscott O’Connor came by her nickname of blog mother, the old-fashioned way-she earned it.

You could ask why the surprise at this: we’ve seen recently that passion and strong feeling is frowned upon in US progressive politics , or should I say Democratic politics. The Edwards blogger situation was a demonstration of that. Campaign consultants for the Democratic Party must’ve been watching the ‘Edwards bloggers’ dog and pony show intently, as a foretaste of how this new campaign/blogging interface would be dealt with by the media at at large – that it was all a bit of a fiasco must’ve set them totally atwitter.

Co-incidentally, right afterwards the self-described ‘big bloggers’ (the ones intent on moving up in the informal Democratic power-broking hierarchy, beginning to consider themselves kingmakers and hoping for a bit of that consultancy dosh) started divesting themselves of inconvenient former connections.

Hmmm. Blogroll purge – presidential candidate/ blogger scandal, campaign war-chests: could they by chance be related? I think we should be told.

But the big bloggers only found themselves in their current positions because of the anticapitalist and antiglobalist left overseas bloggers linking to them and quoting approvingly from their posts and comments – those on the US left who looked outside the country for their news and opinion found that here was someone. actually on their own doorsteps, speaking their language. But there’d been like-minded leftists talking to each other online way before Blogger was invented, on Indymedia, Usenet, IRC and the Well: online political discussion is hardly a new thing and political bloggers were about way before Atrios or Kos typed their first anti-Bush diatribe.

What made them different? Timing and a eye to marketing.

Kos’diary model was timely – it came along just at the right time, when there was a dearth of political space for US liberals against the war to speak their minds and discuss their position. It was a niche market: a discussion forum run by Americans for Americans and in which Europeans and others could actually speak to Americans about politics and it was a safe space when a safe space was badly needed.

The likes of Kos and Atrios and others may see themselves as having been in the blogging vanguard but their success is built on the work of thousands. When or how they began to see blogging as a money-making platform for their own ambitions I couldn’t say for sure, but I suspect around the time the Liberal Ad Network was formed.

Kos’ success in my opinion has been a matter of historical happenstance, (plus hard work – there’s no denying he’s given it that ) plus the fact that when he started there was no US progressive blogosphere to speak of. The market was ripe for the plucking: but had he come along at another time under another president but Bush, it would’ve been a bust.

But most essential of all to Kos’ success has been an educated, eloquent and dogged group of diarists. For many of those diarists it was the first time they realised they could speak out in public and the sky wouldn’t fall; many went on to become bloggers themselves, loyally linking to Kos and back and to their fellow diarists and bloggers. Thus circular linking built a readership, a blogosphere and a sucessful Kos brand.

But Daily Kos isn’t and has never been a democracy, for all its ratings systems: it’s exactly what I said, a brand, and a brand has an image to protect if it wants to attract investment.

Atrios’ rise is slightly differently explained: he became popular initially because of linkage from non-USAnian and expatriate bloggers against the war – it was “Look- here’s an American economist who agrees with us, and he’s funny too”. The fact that he worked for Media Matters for America also gave his opinions added credibility. That he writes with a wry self-deprecation and an eye for the ridiculous and the in-joke made him even more popular – and as with Kos, linkage gave him prominence.

Then the early adopters and those with a little clue amongst the mainstream media started asking “who are these people?” and slowly the bigger blogs started to have some actual influence. But the moment they stepped into fund-raising for the Democrats they stopped being outside critics of the political system and started working within it.

One of the first blogs I ever read, and I’ve been reading and contributing to blogs before they were blogs, was American Samizdat. I always thought samizdat was exactly the right description of political blogging -information and politics that was outside the mainstream channels, uncontrolled and unfiltered by editors or party apparatchiks – people’s actual voices and personal knowledge. Whistleblowing on a grand scale.

The big blogs got where they are on the back for the hard work of those whistleblowers – iIf it weren’t for them, they’d’ve had no content and no links. To have to have bought in what the diarists and commenters brought to the big blogs would’ve cost plenty at investigative journalists’ and pundits’ rates.

But the commenters and diarists did it for nothing, because of their political commitment, and in the process they made Kos and Atrios well-known and influential; so much so they think they deserve a slice of the presidential campaign war-chests.

I’ve seen the phenomenon of the free-marketisation of political blogging described as the natural consequence of a lack of the progressive equivalent of wingnut welfare. I see it as a lack of thought and participative discussion about how an online political community could have actually explored a new model of democratic participation. If there’s that much concern about supporting progressive bloggers financially, all that money raised for unsuccesful candidates could have been put into a progressive blogging foundation, along the lines of the trust that runs a couple of British newspapers, with a membership organisation, a democratically elected board, regular meetings and votes. Grant money could have been applied for on that basis.

But no, the basic premise for the US center-left – and they have the loudest online presence – is and has always been the free market, so that’s how they’re running their blogs.

That’s fine, it’s their blog, we can all get our own. But we can all also choose who we participate with and link to, and those who live by the market die by the market. Death for any blog is no content and no links and this is the hidden power the so-called ‘lesser blogs’ have over the Kool kidz. How much influence would they have then? Would Democratic politiciams still take their phone calls without those comments and links?

To adapt a free-market truism, the Kool Kidz should remember that bloggers can go down as well as up. And isn’t there some saying about being nice to those you meet on the way up, because you can be sure you’ll meet them on the way down?

I don’t care whether we’re linked to by the self-chosen elite big blogs or not, so this can’t be dismissed as sour grapes. Martin may feel differently, but it’s enough for me that a handful of people read this blog – it’s nice to look at stats and have a little internal smugness because the hits are high, but really in the long run it’s irrelevant. Popularity is such a fleeting thing – it’s what you do politically, not what you say, that actually matters.

If only one person were to change their way of thinking or understand the world a little better because of something Martin or I’ve written or done, it’ll do for me.

I could be accused of being a moral prig because we don’t need to make money from Prog Gold and have no plans to do so, and maybe that’s true.

But if we ever were to decide to collude with the political establishment in maintaining the capitalist status quo, personally profiting from doing so whilst simultaneously shitting on the people who made us what we are, you’ld be the first to know.

My Coup-Ca-Choo

Digby:

When I asked if Cheney had “found” a fourth branch of government in position that until a decade or so ago was considered a seat warmer for a presidential run and the designated state funeral stand-in for the president, I didn’t realize they were actually setting this forth as a legal argument. Dear God.

This means that he considers himself even more “unitary” than he considers the president, beyond all reach of either branch, answerable to no one.

Cheney is refusing to comply with a presidential executive order. What do you suppose the Empty Codpiece feels about this? Does he know that his Vice president believes he has an independent office that doesn’t answer to him or anyone else?

Digby has been writing for some time about Dick Cheney’s manipulation of US constitutional law to put himself beyond the scrutiny or oversight of any branch of government, including the judiciary. In effect Cheney and his lawyer accomplices have created a virtual dictatorship with unlimited and unaccountable powers that even usurps the presidency. That he planned to do this is something that has been obvious from the outset, as many law-bloggers have pointed out.

But some of Digby’s commenters seem taken aback. Have they been walking around with their eyes shut? Why are people so damned surprised at this? Juan Cole was warning of this explicitly in 2004:

In short, has there been a Cheney coup-by-default? Is W. so disengaged that he is taking dictation from the former CEO of Halliburton? And, we now know that LBJ used to spend his mornings on the phone to business cronies doing private business. How much of Cheney’s time is spent on the phone to old business associates in the corporate world (seeking to know what legislation they would like to have)? Who pushed Bush into the second, disastrous round of tax-slashing, which was a way of selling our children into indentured servitude?

It may well be that the US has not a presidency but a Duumvirate a la ancient Rome.

As they started so they’ll finish. Immediately post-election the White House promised “a cataclysmic fight to the death” with Democratic opponents. Well, they’re just doing exactly what they said. They may be evil bastards but at least they’re consistent evil bastards.

I’m not expecting anything at all from the Democrats: they are bought and sold and it’s all about the Presidential race now anyhow (which will be horribly ironic when Cheney cancels the election under the special emergency powers that he issued to himself in secret). From what I’ve seen of the Democrats in Congress so far it appears that, with honourable exceptions like Feingold, the leadership’ve already given up this fight – unless they’re playing a particularly abstruse long game that us mere mortals are unable to see. I know I can’t see it and I’ve been watching American politics for decades. But if there is no plan and Democrats don’t act, we’re all screwed. So why don’t they?

Read More

Democrats Cosy Weekend With War Criminal – “He’s Still Got The Touch”, Says Pelosi

“Mr. Bush was so warmly received yesterday that he stayed in the room to shake hands for a half-hour after he was done answering questions”

All those blogger/Democrat cheerleaders who still believe despite all the indications to the contrary that Congressional Democrats will save the country and impeach Bush should maybe think again.

As the AP reports, all is copacetic between Bush and the Democrats: so much so that they even invited him to their weekend retreat at the Anheuser-Busch owned, luxurious Kings Mill Resort in Virginia:

Kingsmill Resort and Conference Center, owned and operated by Busch Properties Incorporated, one of the Anheuser-Busch Companies, is the perfect setting for all meeting types. Nestled in a planned residential community, few resorts or conference centers provide such a unique opportunity for a variety of groups. Kingsmill offers the perfect balance between business and pleasure.

Oh, how very cosy. (Note to the curious: Anheuser Busch, Donations to the Republican party 1999-2004: $2.9 million The Democrats are giving money indirectly to the Republicans. Well done those Dems! I bet there’s a few smaller donors won’t be too happy with that.)

Bush woos House Democrats at retreat
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Feb 3, 2:31 PM ET

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. –

President Bush squarely addressed the issue most on the mind of House Democrats, saying Saturday that deep divisions over the
Iraq war need not bring anyone’s patriotism into question.

“You know, I welcome debate in a time of war and I hope you know that,” Bush said in opening remarks at the guest speaker at a retreat that drew about 200 lawmakers to a Virginia resort.

He said disagreeing with him over the war — as many in the room do — does not mean “you don’t share the same sense of patriotism I do.”

“You can get that thought out of your mind, if that’s what some believe,” the president said. “These are tough times, but there’s no doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland as much as I do.”

Bush told Democrats in private that he empathizes with their anguish on Iraq, saying the war is “sapping our soul,” according to two officials who attended the session. They spoke on condition of anonymity because it was a closed meeting.

Bush’s conciliatory words were similar to some of his previous statements. But the applause and acknowledgment that followed them offered some indication that this audience was happy to hear them so directly and in person.

“We were honored by your presence. We’re also encouraged by your remarks,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California said after Democrats met privately with the president. “I believe we have an opportunity to work together.”

[…]

“I look forward to working with you,” he said. “I know you’ve probably heard that and doubt whether it’s true. It’s true.”

The LA Times gives a little more background:

The White House and the Democratic caucus had carefully negotiated how many questions the president would face, ultimately agreeing that the Democrats could ask six — and only after reporters left the room.

Oh right, so the Democrats colluded yet again in enabling Bush to remain publicly unaccountable for his illegal actions. Well done Dems again!

In addition to the question about Iraq, which was asked by San Diego Rep. Susan A. Davis, lawmakers also asked about immigration, the budget and the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

In public, however, Bush, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders took pains to avoid appearing partisan.

In opening his speech, the president joked about having used the term “Democrat Party” in his recent State of the Union address — a phrase that some lawmakers interpreted as derogatory.

“Now, look, my diction isn’t all that good,” the president said. “I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.”

Democrats laughed appreciatively.

“Still has the touch,” Pelosi noted later.

Doesn’t sound to me like impeachment is on the Democrats’ agenda any time soon, if it ever was.

To Iran, and beyond!

Comment of the Day: Oops! Apocalypse Edition

Orwell Shirt

Today’s is from That American Chap following Digby’s excellent post about the US media’s suggestion that a war with Iran would somehow occur accidentally, and that the moment to act is NOW.

The Chap’s comment echoes what I’ve been saying for some time, but does so a damned sight more concisely and urgently.

It’s been clear to me for at least two years that we would be going to war (and a nuke one at that) with Iran and that nothing, not the failure in Iraq, not the clear evidence of how they lied the Iraq war into existence, would stop it.

When you say that “we’d better get ready to see our lives change in fundamental ways”, you’re spot on… but I doubt that you really grasp how dark the future is (you’d be screaming at the top of your lungs if you really knew), just how devastating our nuking of Iran will be for the US! The rest of the planet will regard us (for the next couple of hundred years) as the guys who one-upped the Nazis in the contest to see who could be the most despised villains in history.

The neo-cons (why aren’t these clowns serving life terms in prisons for the criminally insane?) still think that the best route for us is to grab up as many of the world’s oil fields as we can (yes, all of that sniping at Venezuela is a tip-off that we’ll be going there in the “cause of freedom”, aka- stealing their oil) and that all of this bullying will make us the world’s hyper-power for a thousand year reich.

The problem with this theory is that, like all neo-con thoughts, it is only “thunk” from the perspective of people who have an exceedingly incomplete picture of reality. Remember how the whole middle east was going to bow down to us and surrender when the awesome majesty of our military might was shown to them? What steaming-hot bullshit THAT turned out to be! We’ve shown them *way* too much and now they see us as a paper tiger (and outside of nuking the rest of the planet, we simply aren’t good at these long distance, long-termed wars, are we?) who can be ground down with snipers and IED’s.

They (the neo-cons) picture the rest of the world as helpless victims of our power when, in fact, *we’re* the fragile ones. Once we nuke Iran, the rest of the world will understand, without any doubt, that we’re out to grab the oil…and this will outrage them. They will band together against us and simply boycott every American product and turn in the dollars they’re holding for the currencies of China and the European Union. This will vaporize the buying power of the dollar and shatter our economy beyond repair. Martial law and civil war will occupy the American homeland and the troops that the neocons envisioned blitzing through the middle-east will be called home to patrol their own country.

Trust me on this, we’re in for a shitstorm the likes of which you only ever pictured reading about in some absurdly dark novel. If you have any brains (and I assume that your presence here is an indicator that you do), you’d better wave off the fog of “it can’t happen here” because it, in fact, IS happening here. Take whatever disposable cash you have and turn those faltering dollars into something real, canned food, shotguns, batteries, medical supplies, motor oil, anything practical that you’ll be able to use or to barter with in the future. If this sounds like hysteria to you, think again, the most powerful weapon that the rest of the world has to use against us is our own dollar, and when we make ourselves into complete monsters by nuking Iran, they will use that weapon to paralyze us, to defang us, to cause us internal agonies that will stop our aggression.

Don’t just stand there slack-jawed, watching this go down in a state of horrified fascination, get your ass in gear and do what you can to position your family and friends to be able to survive the coming nightmare as best they can!
That American Chap | 02.01.07 – 4:28 pm | #

Quite.

Oy, the number of posts I’ve written in the past, bewailing the smug complacency of the mushy middle of American left politics and warning grimly. but knowing the innefectuality of it, that although Bushco might be incompetent they are also utterly ruthless and without conscience; that America was going to be in a very bad place indeed before the populace woke up and that when they did it’d be too late; and so it’s proved.

Read More

Inside The Tent Pissing Out

Inside the big tent

Best wishes in her new job to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon who is (like her predecessors at the blog, Ezra and Jesse) moving on to pastures new, specifically to work as web supremo for the John Edwards’ Democratic presidential; nomination campaign. The blog of course carries on – Pam continues as senior member and a new roster of writers has been added.

I’n very pleased for Amanda and that her career is going so well: it’s always nice when nice things happen to nice people and I’m sure she’ll be an asset to the Edwards team. And I’m glad she’s not working for Hillary.

But.

I’ve been very favourably inclined towards Edwards so far, because he at least had something to say for the poor, and I’ve been insisting in argument that an Edards/Obama ticket could be a real possibility and perhaps something that wouldn’t be too bad. I had thought both were the perhaps least venal possibilities of a Democratic party that really is no better than the Republicans when it comes to being beholden to big money and special interests.

Even socialists can see the pragmatic value of opting for the lesser evil.

Bur recently Edwards showed he’s right up there with Lieberman when it comes to supporting Israeli and neocon – and therefore Bush’s – interests in foreign policy.

During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world,” Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,” Edwards said. “Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

Oh. Right. So it’s fine by him if Bush attacks Iran. He’s just another corrupt chickenhawk then. But why sabotage his carefully calculated, champion-of-the-little American and the netroots-choice image like that?

Thinkprogress:

There’s a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he’s pandering to win the support and money of hawkish “pro-Israel” voters and donors. Three, he’s trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

Any of those is enough to make me drop him like a hot brick. But let’s name the real reasons: greed and ambition. Self-interested politrcal triangulation and a willingness to sacrifice lives for his political career. Remind you of anyone?

How could any self-respecting leftist support such a person, let alone work for them?

This goes directly to what I was writing about yesterday, the whole shift in blogging as the presidential campaigns and lobbyists co-opt the power of bloggers:

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it we’ll all get along fine.

Still, we must all make our own decisions and lets face it, other people’s career decisions are not really my business. From the little personal knowledge I have of Amanda she doesn’t strike me as someone who’d make frivolous decisions. I’ve no doubt she’ll have weighed up the pros and cons of this move before making it. On a personal level I will never wish Amanda anything but well, no matter how much we disagree on politics.

But Edwards and his campaign, after his self-exposure as yet another Democratic stalking-horse for AIPAC, are another matter entirely.

Now Shakespeare’s Sister has joined the campaign too as netroots co-ordinator. Nailing political colours to the mast, (or at least getting paid for blogging) seems to be quite the fashion. Who will be the next to put a paycheck over principle, I wonder?

And if anyone thinks that’s harsh or uncivil, I can only repeat what I said in my previous post.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly