Skip to main content

View Diary: HR 1606: real agenda revealed (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you didn't finish a point (0+ / 0-)

    I'd react the same way at MLW on this subject.

    what's your point?

    My criticism of kos are always in the open, you know this.

    That's where my opponents are wise to thank me... some keep their far more hidden.

    This is my BIGGEST BY FAR criticism of kos, for the reasons I've tried to explain.

    •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They're often heavily veiled --- your criticisms of Kos, that is.

      And I simply don't have time to open up a new window and run down the previous comment(s), but in essence, you're lambasting Kos for what is a general tone at MLW --- not the subject in and of itself, but the rhetorical frame, so to speak.

      I've read your other comments and, to be honest, I don't know enough about media law or what this bill will or will not do to comment on what you or anyone else has to say about this specific topic. I'm reserving judgement, IOW.

      I will say, however, had you presented your argument using what you said in your comments to others in this subthread, I wouldn't be left with the singular impression that you're simply setting your sights on Kos and are --- well, whatever people do when they decide to take on The Man. Your initial post, IOW, has very much the feel of those who like to claim that Kos (or ______ <---- [fill in the blank with the name of whichever front pager you're gunning for] is being paid by the DLC or WHATever.</p>

      Gawd, that's a tiresome ploy. I once had a freeper following me around on another board claiming I was being paid by the Democratic Party.

      In any case, it boils down to that. And i would love to continue this but unfortunately, it's planting season here (yes, it really is, pyrrho) but i unfortunaterly also have piles of essay exams to grade not to mention the small herd of guinea hens that moved in with me last week (???) that I've managed to nab (they're all up high sleeping in the oak right behind my place right now and I think they've decided they've run away to the right place please don'ty let their real owners show up and take them now!!!) so I have to get back to grading so I can wake up tomorrow early and figure out where to plant the viburnum and finish getting my seeds started and get the last grape in the ground and the elderberries and god knows what else.

      •  wOOt! (0+ / 0-)

        sorry for the borrowed army slang-- but, wow, cookie bear-- both the slapdown & the guinea hens  z-i-n-g !  Pleasurable reading.

        OT/PS Do you make tincture out of the elderberries?

      •  It bothers me that you in particular... (0+ / 0-)

        ... feel this way.  I respect you and I don't really like what you've had to say to and about me since I came out fully supporting MSOC going on Fox.  

        I think you believe I'm attacking kos, and you think you are defending kos, and I give a lot of latitude because I know I want the freedom to criticise, and part of that is getting criticised.  I also appreciate anyone bold enough to provide, or try to provide, reality checks for me.

        But it's not fair to say my criticism is veiled.  You are saying there is more to it than I show, and yet I've shown all my criticisms. Period.  There is no veil.

        It's simple in this case.

        To protect dkos AS  A PRIVATE INSTITUTION means protecting all PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS the same way.  That's a seduction.

        It's a seduction whereby allegance to one draws us into a falsely generalized principle: "that private corporations can be trusted with laissez-faire regulatory attitudes"... because you imagine dkos can be.

        MLW tone:

        First, it's a group blog, I'm not responsible for it's tone.  I've not only defended kos before, I've done so around the net, and I've recieved a similar accusation from those that would force an association with kos, because I post on his part of the internets.  I post many places.  Granted, I'm spending a lot of time at MLW, still, I'm responsible mainly for my own essays and possibly my reaction to other essays, assuming I've even read them.

        But if someone tries to scare up support for something and I think it's a trap where people are being blind how this may help corporations pour money on the net (and FUCK UP THE BLOGOSPHERE THAT WAY) I'll say so. And if I'm wrong, may that come out in the debate that ensues.

        There is no veil, these are my arguments and the navigation through it is not to be coy, it's to allow balance and humility, not to hide my real concerns.

        I have not hidden them, I have put them out there, and I do so at some risk of offending people that I care about, and being misunderstood, but this is the spirit of the new communication, the peer to peer and citizen politics.  There are DOZENS of people just saying "wait, what's our position on which one?"  I think it's ok to balance that with a few of us telling cautionary tales, and that some of you really could listen carefully to those tales.

        Making this about MLW... it's not about MLW except that MLW is ANOTHER PRIVATE blog.  That should illustrate I'm not against private blogs, I'm against accidently generalizing from what private blogs should to into what private enterprise can do with respect to election law.

        •  pyrrho (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry it took me a while to find this. I've been moving rocks (yes, rocks) in between defending allowing children to read pretty much whatever they feel like.

          And let me return the compliment to you --- I find you a highly entertaining (and I really do mean that in the best sense of the word) poster and do enjoy what you have to say.

          And I did not intend that as a slapdown. My feelings are, if someone dislikes Kos, they dislike Kos. If you dislike Kos, that's fine, and if you don't, that's --- well, more fine.

          However ...

          First, I don't think of blogs as particularly private. In fact, unless they are specifically made private --- password protected or otherwise restricted so that others can't even read the content, they're public. They might be thought of as private maybe in the sense of a coffee shop or a highway, in that you have to have 75 cents to get the cup of coffee and you need a car to ride on the highway.

          However, each coffee shop has its particular personality and its rules, say, in terms of whether, mmm, say, yelling at the person next to you is permissible, just as highways and roads ahev their rules.. Those rules do not make them necessarily private, however. The coffee shop and the highway are still accessible to all who know where they are and have the necessary means to --- whatever --- buy a cup of coffee, drive on it, etc.

          I also admittedly don't have a clue about the finer points of this regulation, but I don't see that Kos' objections have anything to do with private business. I see his objections to being about closing down an avenue for people to get money to candidates they support and for people to gain access to information about the candidates, and restricting that access to, mmm, something like corporate approved sources, although that's not really the term I'm looking for.

          Well, actually, I can think of a private enterprise parallel. We have a situation here in Oklahoma where government has stepped in and put a stop to the ability of private citizens to purchase free range, blah blah, poultry from producers. Government literally seized some chickens, in fact, to this end. In essence, what they're demanding is that citizens only purchase poultry from "approved" sources --- namely Tyson and the other chicken factories.

          From what I can gather of the proposed rule, the situations are parallel. Oklahoma gov't entities are protecting large factory producers and making life even more difficult for the upstart small producer (meaning operations with less than 2 or 5,000 chickens, can't remember which). Same thing with this legislation --- it will effectively strip the upstarts of their effectiveness.

          Beyond that, dragging MLW into it is because I'm seeing you object to things that are common on MLW. An emotional tone, perhaps, or something. It isn't about changing the subject to MLW --- it's about asking whether you might be putting Kos under too much of a microscope and failing to see what's right before your eyes. It's a common enough thing --- I spend lots of time worrying over my sister's financial negligence and her failure to attend to her diabetes --- I even complain about these things to other people --- meanwhile, I'm happily oblivious to my own spendthrift habits and my chowing down on all those goodies which us diabetes-prone people should alway always avoid.

          I remember the day I realized what I was doing. It wasn't so long ago either. Boy oh boy. Just in time, too, because I've been driving myself into bankruptcy, and all the while worrying over my sister.

          IOW, this is one of those things people do. We all do it and you're not alone. However, it does seem disingenuous to me that you would call Kos on it, but not see it in your own homeys.

          I think it's fine to call out something if you think it's a trap. But your argument would be better served by, say, doing what you did in your subsequent comments. Your point became clearer  then, whereas before it felt like the old Kos is 3vil and must be stopped! stuff.

          I have to go back to moving rocks. Really. Seriously. I'm not joking. I'm building a new bed out front around the telephone thing sticking up with them. And I haven't gotten the viburnum planted yet and I'm determined to do that by tonight because it's supposed to start raining.

          •  I believe your rocks (0+ / 0-)

            thanks for the reply.

            The MLW angle is fair... of course, the impact of kos' opinion is far different and reason to discriminate, for example, a more urgent tone to correct kos and a less urgent for another that is not being so widely and carefully listened to.  But I don't fall back on that, you are right, and I take the caution to be consistent is important.  I have actually been working on a "tone" diary about "radicalism" and "non-violence" and rhetoric for MLW... I'm not saying there is no issue there.

            "I see his objections to being about closing down an avenue for people to get money to candidates they support and for people to gain access to information about the candidates, and restricting that access to, mmm, something like corporate approved sources, although that's not really the term I'm looking for."

            my problem with him giving that impression is that the regulations would not literally shut down the site, they would put some regulation in place that had to be adhered to, "shutting down the site" is what kos says he'll have to do, he's basically saying it won't be worth it, and that's where the corporate similarities come in (not that I dislike corporations, or think blogs shouldn't be private-businesses, MLW is private too for that matter), but the similirities come in because this is what capitalist businesses also say when you want to regulate them "we'll be forced to shut down (or move to Bopal where there is freedom)".

            •  ah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I think I see more what you mean.

              I guess I think more of Kos as an upstart. Yes, he has influence but I think the blogs as a whole have influence --- of course, i also think each of us as individuals have influence, whether we realize it or not.

              And I think I'm also considering it very much from the angle of what's going on here in terms of small producers vs factory farmers. Tyson et al are esp. apt examples --- they're throwing their weight around Oklahoma, in part to protect their monopoly, but also to stop some lawsuits against them dead in the tracks (the state of Okl and some other entities are suing Tyson and the state of Arkansas for polluting our groundwater and rivers with chicken poop).

              But right down the road from me is a turkey farm which raises heritages and has become somewhat famous --- they were even featured on Martha Stewart. ! Seriously.

              Yet they're suffering just as much at the hands of the govt and Tyson.

              To me, Kos is ~ to the heritage turkey farmer, and the bulk of our small producers ~ to the blogs as a whole. A desirable phenomenon which many people know about and want, but lacking supermarket level visibility (think FOX as ~ to Tyson or Hormel, easily available to everyone, in contrast to the small producers who are much more difficult to seek out and find).

              I'm not against regulation, mind you. I am against undue influence in establishing regulations, esp. when it looks like an attempt to shut down the upstarts.

              But we'll see where this goes. I'm not a media lawyer and I'm still pretty fuzzy on the details here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site