Skip to main content

Last night on the NBA finals thread, DCDemocrat mistakenly thought it was a general open thread and posted this comment:

One recommended diary tonight (4.00 / 10)

predicted that dkos would bring down the Bush Administration.  A second recommended diary predicted that the Hastert-Delay House would vote articles of impeachment against George Bush.  

Has anyone checked the community's reality-based community credentials recently?

Markos agreed that...

They're seriously in question right now (none / 1)

No doubt about that.

I'd been thinking about the cavalcade of fanciful diaries myself, especially the variety described by DCDemocrat, that seem to completely disregard the fact that it would take a deeply conservative and corrupt Republican House to impeach a deeply conservative and corrupt Republican President, who if he were impeached would be replaced by a deeply conservative and corrupt Republican Vice President.  In other words, the chances of this happening are somewhere along the lines of me hitting a flock of flying monkeys on my way to the office tomorrow morning.

Quick, reality check, did you just try to craft a quip about how I might actually hit a flying monkey tomorrow morning?  If so, you're part of the problem.

And there is a problem.  We have too many people believing in fantasy.  We have people more obsessed with thinking Mitkofsky is in cahoots with Rove than worrying about whether their local election clerk is competent and getting off their butts to do something to make sure their local elections are conducted fairly.  We have people more obsessed with boycotting the Washington Post because Dana Milbank was mean to John Conyers than getting off their butts to register voters for next year.  We have people obsessed with calling anyone who doesn't want a Stalinist purge of the Democratic party a "Vichy Democrat" than getting off their butts and attending their first meeting of their local, county or Congressional Democratic party organization.  

I was thinking about this when I saw DCDemocrat's comment, and it hit me: Daily Kos has been infiltrated by Republican dirty tricksters.  

It's Karl Rove's fault.

Think about how easy it would be for the Republicans to screw up the blogs, especially those run on Scoop that allow people to post diaries.  All they would have to do is start posting crazy-ass conspiracy theories, and then get people to help them "game the system" by recommending the diaries (where that's an option), or at least posting scads of fawning comments and encouragement for people to think along the same lines.  It's a great way to distract people from getting off their butts and doing things that matter, and tainting sources of news and discussion like Daily Kos with the ridiculous, the fanciful, the destructive and the demonstrably false.  That way the people who rely on this site to be informed, engaged and inspired would be disillusioned and fade away, or distracted and diverted from what's important.  

So what should be done?  

Those who care about Daily Kos need to step up and take responsibility.  They need to, at a minimum, stop recommending diaries that, as Markos and DCDemocrat discussed, call into question the place's reality-based credentials.  When those diaries are recommended, they need to wade into the threads and ask the questions that are ignored or obfuscated in the diary.  They need to look at new diaries and recommend diaries that are worthy, and pose the hard and revealing questions about those that aren't.  And everyone needs to stop being so gullible.  

If you care about being associated with the reality-based community, it's up to you.  

Originally posted to Dana Houle on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:40 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm About 80% Sure... (3.94)
    ...the problems aren't caused by Republican dirty tricksters.

    But that doesn't mean that departing from reality, even if well-intentioned, doesn't cause harm to this place.

    •  I'm 100% Sure (4.00)
      Cuz it's me and you.

      WE are the problem.

      Or so I am told.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:41:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  RECOMMEND THIS!!! (none)

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

      by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:41:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, About 96% Sure... (4.00)'s not Republican dirty tricksters.
      •  Improbability drive (3.66)
        "10 to the power of 217,000 and rising..."

        Fake-based diarheeing ain't just for politics anymore either.  Lately I've also seen posts about how the WTC was actually destroyed to cover up (insert silly assertion here) because, you know, steel won't melt in a fire so it must have been deliberate.  Other examples escape me at the moment - but the level of silliness has gotten pretty silly in itself.

        I think you may be on to something.  Bob's dog has been acting mighty suspicious.

        "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

        by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:29:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (4.00)
          I would not be surprised that Rove would try to plant some diaries here. It's an obvious move; too obvious in fact, and easily corrected.  For example, the outrageous claim that 9,000 soldiers have died in Iraq is the kind of stupid plant that someone like Gannon might make.  I'm not saying that was a plant, but it fits the modus operandi.  It has to be dumb enough for the public to understand.  Anything more subtle will fail.  It is also easily correctible.

          Moral of story.  If you see a diary that's clearly a bucket of crap, say so.  It leaves a record.

          This raises the problem of type I and type II error.  We may commit a few more errors of the second type by raising the bar for errors of the first type.  But IMHO, it's a small price to pay.

          •  Type I and II errors? (none)
            What are Type I and Type II errors?
          •  I don't think Rove (none)
            gives a shit what we write here.  And I don't see why he would.

            Help Paul Hackett win the first race of the 2005-2006 cycle

            by lorax on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:51:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't you believe it. (4.00)
              Rove is probably the most intelligent of the Bushistas.  Rove is about politics 100% of the time, awake or asleep.  He's damnably politically savvy.  If I can figure out how potentially powerful the political ferment on the Kos is, then Rove has long since figured it out for himself.  He's too smart and too paranoid to let this place go unwatched and unreported on.  If I were Rove, I'd have an intern or two keeping tabs on things and writing daily reports on what's being discussed, what topics are being repeatedly addressed, which prominent Dems are posting here, what connections between Kossacks and prominent Dems are being touted, anything and everything that seems important either today or down the road.

              Example: if, say, Feingold seems far more popular as a potential presidential candidate among the Kossacks than the common wisdom gives him credit for, then I'd mark that and keep a weather eye on Feingold as having possibly more legs than conventional wisdom gives him credit for.

              There are probably ten thousand or more --way more -- leftist political blogs out there, but you and I can easily name the ten or twenty that are really active and viable (as opposed to virtually private forums between a few friends, or smaller blogs that don't get much attention, or nutjob blogs that work the crazy fringe).  If Rove has any sense at all, he's keeping tabs on all of them.

              Is he trying to influence them, or direct them towards self-immolation?  Actually, though it's probably a tempting idea, I doubt he is.  If I were Rove, I'd let them alone for now and see where they're going and what's brewing.  As we all know, the act of observation can change the dynamics of a phenomenon and turn it into something else entirely.  While it might be relatively easy for a raft of Rovian plants to turn a blog such as this one into a cannabilizing flame pit, it would ultimately be pointless -- the people he's most interested in would go elsewhere, possibly somewhere he would be less able to keep tabs on.  He wants to know what's going on and what trends are forming, and to that end, "freeping" this blog, or Atrios or TalkLeft or any of the other bigtime lefty blogs, would be counterproductive at this point.  My guess is that we've got some lurkers taking notes and never, ever posting.  He probably gets a good chuckle out of the internal strife such as the pie fight, but didn't have someone start it.  (Let's admit, lefties are just too good at self-immolation to blame Rove or Freepers for starting fights among ourselves.  We do that to ourselves quite well.)

              So that's my possibly paranoid take on this issue.  What does this mean for us?  Nothing in particular, except that we have to understand that anything we manage to create, any possibly transforming ideas or procedures that we come up with, are being watched and noted.

              We are not operating in a vacuum, and we are not alone.

              This is probably worth diarying, so if you wish to comment, I'm about to make this into a diary.  You might want to respond (and perhaps call me a paranoid headcase) there.

              This Far and No Further
              Combo of historical timeline and selected commentary

              by Black Max on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:48:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  a decent analysis (none)
                Especially since he considers us "dangerous subversives".

                While IMHO, Rove is overrated, what you've described is opposition research of public sources, and that's something only an idiot would neglect.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 02:20:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Makes sense to me... (none)
                I too would be very surprised if Rove did not have someone "watching" what goes on around here.  He is not dumb by any means.  

                I'm much less sure as to whether he would be planting disruptive ideas.  It is not beyond possibility, but as someone said, lefties are pretty good at doing that to themselves.  More likely just watching.  Maybe a stray comment here or there, to fan flames that have already been started by someone.

                And yes Black Max, this would make a good diary by itself.

          •  Karl, is that you? (none)
            Long ago in another space I used to reply to the obvious disruptive posts with: "Karl, is that you?"

            Yes, it happens.

            They're studying Scoop and testing the boundaries. Once they're done with that they'll create right wingnut Scoop-like sites very similar to this, except they won't allow diaries or comments.

        •  I saw that one (4.00)
          looking for something else...apparently those morons have never seen what fire can do.

          They might want to ask FDNY how hot a fire can burn (especially one fed by jet fuel), and what it can melt.

          One place where I worked had a fire, about 10 yrs ago. Just your average run of the mill fire. We had oh, maybe 5 computers in that ofice. We never found ANY of them. Not a scrap. Not monitors, not cases, not nothing. Wait, I take that back. We found ONE hard drive. We weren't even sure what molten piece of slag was the COPIER, and that was a full size, big ass, copier.

          Won't melt steel my ass...

        •  Hey Shapeshifter (none)
          Yeah, I'm calling you out.  My comment does not warrant a 2.  Are you yet another bad actor handing out low ratings to people whose comments you don't agree with?  That makes you part of the problem.  Why not become part of the solution.

          "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

          by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:29:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you're obviously (none)
          not familiar with the specifics, which have never been explained in any believable manner:

          •  I'm quite familiar (none)
            Believable to whom?

            I, and many other engineers including the original designer, find it quite believable.

            "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

            by baba durag on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:55:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  dkos (4.00)
      I think we have to face the fact that since dkos is the top of the heap in terms of liberal community sites, it attracts a hell of a lot of political beginners that are only attracted to politics because of the lure of conspiracy.  There isn't a way around that unless we start forcing new members to take a multiple-choice quiz to weed out the deluded.

      Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

      by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:12:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But Some Won't... (none)
        ...remain deluded if those of us with a little more experience can pose some questions and make it clear things aren't simple.  God knows I've learned a hell of a lot by hanging around here over the last 2+ years, so I know the neophytes can as well.
        •  yeah (none)
          that is a good point, but I also get that you are frustrated at being in that role.  If there's a structural way to reduce the need for you to be in that role, then it frees up your time more to focus on other issues.  And if you're an insightful sort, it opens up the opportunity for you to use that insight on new matters, rather than on helping  neophytes along.  

          I'm not saying it's not honorable to help in that way.  I'm just not sure it's the most efficient way to go.

          Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

          by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:02:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think all of us (none)
            play that role at some time or another.  It's frustrating, and angering, because it can be like hitting your head on a wall.  I've seen you do it too, tunesmith.  And good on ya for it.

            "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

            by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:24:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  thanks ;-) (none)
              And since someone else already took me to task about this, I don't look down on those that make the mistakes I made a year ago, (must as I don't look up to those that know more than me... no, wait a second).  I reserve the right to ridicule the unreceptive, though.  

              Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

              by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:28:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Man you guys are arrogant (3.50)
              •  I think not (none)
                Arrogance is different thing altogether.  Do you consider this diary arrogant?  Or is it an attempt to raise the level of discourse?

                Arrogance is an overbearing attitude of self importance.  I'm not advocating that at all.  But not pointing out bullshit is just complicity.

                "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

                by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:22:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Those silly neophytes (none)
                  And if you're an insightful sort, it opens up the opportunity for you to use that insight on new matters, rather than on helping  neophytes along.

                  Yes, it is a shame to see such political genius wasted on the new converts.  Of course, many of them have been in the game for much longer than you.  For many it is their experience, Warren Commission, MLK killing, Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 2000 Election, 911 unanswered questions, 04 election unanswered questions, that built them up to these points of disturst.  Some of these were the same people screaming, "There are no WMD in Iraq!"  Silly neophytes.  Don't they know everything is just fine and the reality-based arrogance of the Dems has served our election victories just fine.

                  Read this and this and understand that we are shaping a new reality and we won't break through with REASON.  To gain the critical mass needed to save many lives and the soul of our nation will not be reached by arrogant banter.  The Repubs certainly didn't use that tactic, and they win.

                  And yes, your "If everyone was just more like us," attitude is arrogant and offensive.  I don't know exactly what happened on 911, but I do think it is strange that the President of this nation didn't want a formal investigation.  I find it strange that several pilots told me they couldn't slam a plane into the Pentagon at that speed and altitude.  I have questions, and I don't think raising them makes me a conspiracy nut.  I don't think I need the answers or a smoking gun in order to ask such questions.  I hope I never lose the zeal of a neophyte.

                  •  You have misunderstood my intent (none)
                    And you're ranting at an ally, not a foe.

                    I too went through all the experiences you mention.  I too screamed "there are no WMDs".  

                    I DO NOT subscribe to the words you're trying to put in my mouth:  "If everyone was just more like us,".  Nor is that what I advocate.

                    I DO advocate good critical thinking.  Without it you end up swayed by weak arguments, and waste your time pursuing every dumb theory that comes down the pike.  

                    When someone spouts such a theory it is the highest calling to try and help them understand what is wrong with it so that they can learn the flaws in a bad one.

                    I applaud you for retaining your zeal.  I too seek to retain mine.  I seek to gain understanding at the same time.  Without it we remain stuck in our present state, without learning and growing.  For zeal alone won't carry the day.  We also need understanding, and wisdom.

                    "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

                    by baba durag on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 09:14:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  some people (none)
          PREFER being deluded. It makes life a lot less complicated if you can follow your own, noncontradictory storyline--even if it has very little basis in reality, or ignores crucial bits of information. It's not a right or left thing--it's a some people are just like that thing.

          A misinformed critical thinker will change their mind when presented with new, convincing evidence. They might dig their heels in for a while, but if the evidence is compelling enough, they'll come around.

          Someone who prefers being deluded will simply discount any evidence or information that doesn't back up their original thesis. I don't think they'll change until they want to change. If that's the type of person you're dealing with, just walk away...

          Abortions go up under Republicans. Business is better under Democrats. Pass it on.

          by JMS on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:28:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I maybe considered a conspiracy theory nut (4.00)
        I see no problem with looking at information and seeing what others are talking about. Because I tend to be one considered to that level I have taken steps within myself to try to avoid being taken over by one.

        Rules I follow:

        1. Listen to what people say. There are going to be some who might say something wrong, but always listen so that can be aware of what is out there.

        2. Take Advise if you do something wrong. Humans aren't perfect and we make mistake. We can learn from mistakes as long as we aren't stubborn about our mistakes. I rather learn from a mistake then keep making the same mistake over and over again.

        3. Read from more then one view points. I personally find it interesting to see what the other side has to say, then the middle, and then the people I agree with. This gives me a view of where the middle position is and I can make a better understanding of what is happening.

        4. Know the places you are looking at. Don't be fooled into believing everything on the internet. Always try to find out about the source of where it is coming from.

        5. Respect others so that if you do make a mistake those others will be more likely to forgive someone who has made a mistake if you meant no harm by your mistake. You may loose creditability because of your mistake, but it's better to respect those in a community because if you don't then there is no reason anyone else should respect you.
      •  Political literacy tests (none)
        Along with political literacy tests, are you proposing a diary tax? I understand the combination can be most effective in keeping out the undesirables.

        When you've reached "the top of the heap" of the "liberal community", you deserve the right to weed out those uppity beginners.  Let 'em learn it on the streets.

    •  dumb diaries (4.00)
      you mean YOUR version of reality. everyone
      is on their own timetable and path to
      their enlightenment. It can't be rushed,
      it's a process.

      You want everyone to think like you?

      Isn't that what Bush does? Personally I like the freedom of reading the dumb diaries and deciding for myself what to reject or take in.

      •  i do want people to stop troll rating me (4.00)
        because they don't like my formatting or my bad jokes...

        jon stewart: "when i want news, i turn to cnn and they turn to skippy the bush kangaroo."

        by skippy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:06:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fuck! (3.83)
        This is something I had to tell my intro philosophy students every semester: criticism is good and necessary. Criticism is what we do when we use our judgment.

        18-year olds tend to come in two flavors: relativists and ideologues. Bizarrely, some are both at once.

        NB, I'm guessing that a relativistic impulse was at work in that post. But in writing it, you were offering criticism of DHinMI. Does that mean you want him to "think like you?" Yes, and no. Yes, in that you think he's wrong about something and want to let him know, presumably with the intention of correcting him. No, in that you don't want him to think like you no matter what, but only in as much as you're right (or have a more reasonable view).

        That's what offering criticism is all about. It's what we in the reality-based community do when we disagree with each other. It's what you do, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. If you have a commitment to the truth and to the well-being of other people, then you should also have a commitment to correcting people when you think they veer from the truth excessively.

        Regardless of any suspicions about the idea of an "ultimate meaning" to life and all that, no society can function without conceptions of good and bad, right and wrong. We don't have to agree on everything, but the less we agree, the less we can get along.

        DHinMI wasn't taking away your "freedom to read dumb diaries and decide for yourself what to reject or take in." But he was presenting reasons that he thought were relevant for rejecting some of those diaries. Argue that they aren't relevant, but don't argue that people shouldn't offer reasons for you to change your mind. Not here. Not in the public sphere.

        the spirit is restored by wounding

        by jd in nyc on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:59:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The diary in question was mine (4.00)
      I had some thoughts.  I wrote them down.  Like a few hundred other people who visit here every day,  I posted them.  Most of my diaries have had scant attention; only one ever made the list before yesterday's.

      For reasons that are not subject to my control, people responded to my thoughts, and recommended the diary. A small minority objected to it as "triumphalism," "non-reality-based," and one even troll-rated the tip jar, which seems a little over the top.  

      You don't have to read it and you don't have to recommend it, but suggesting that I am a Republican operative is REALLY "un-reality-based."  If you want to know who I am and what I'm about, I have a website that will tell you every detail of my life that I choose to make public.  Go there if you want and see if I look like a Republican.

      Maybe my diary wasn't good, maybe I have done better, but I was not responsible for the recommendations and if there had not been any from MY PEERS, we would not be having this discussion either.  

      One thing I was careful to point out was that the fact of disagreement on any number of subjects is one of the things that I enjoy here.  That's what makes us different from the lock-step rightwingers.  My diary sparked a lengthy discussion, and whether I was "right" or "wrong" it made other people think about stuff and talk about it.  Shoot, here it is a day later, my diary has fallen off the map, and people are STILL discussing it.

      That looks like success to me, even if I was dead wrong about everything in the diary.

      I have no problem understanding and accepting the criticism, which was probably deserved, but I would not have known where my thinking went wrong unless I had exposed it here.  Once we become afraid to expose our thoughts on DKos because it might not fit a vaguely defined standard, we might as well be LGF.

      Criticize my thinking as much as you want.  Show me where I am wrong.  Give me a chance to respond and perhaps even change my mind.

      But don't troll-rate the tip jar.  That's just mean.

      It don't mean a feng if it ain't got that shui.

      by Doc Bogus on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:37:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frankly, that (none)
        diary, while maybe a bit over the top, was a great antidote to the doom and gloom, we're
        never going to make a difference version that shows up now and again.  Also, as a friend of
        mine's motto goes:

        Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

        It's the Neo-conjob, stupid.

        by nargel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:35:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  he's a piano mover! (none)
        last time i checked, piano movers were def lefty crazy liberals.   ;) nice site, btw. i'd give my president for a baby grand.
    •  Really? (none)
      Cause I'm only 50% sure. I thought about doing a diary on this before, how they could sign up screen names on dKos and start screwing with our minds and starting flame wars and get a bunch of the more sheep like here off on wild goosechase "boycotts" for some alleged crime. And, just to guage Demcrats' reactions to specific propaganda.

      We're basically an open source think thank that publishes it's agenda and minutes, anyway.

      But I decided that that was over the top and counterproductive to my worries, so I figured I wouldn't. Plus, it probably doesn't matter if we have been or not, as long as we keep our heads screwed tightly on to our shoulders.

      If th' meek ever do inherit th' earth some one'll git it away from 'em before they have it an hour

      by NorthStarDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:55:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We're lucky you're around (none)
      to tell us what reality is.
    •  I'm just amused (none)
      that people still use the word "tricksters"
    •  Na Naa Na Naa Na Naa - Close the Sunroof, quick!!! (none)
      Fly! Fly!  Back to the 1972 land of No, Never, Nixon can't be thrown out! President Agnew - '76.
    •  rationalist values (none)
      like skepticism and rigor, are what's needed.

      scratch a "progressive" conspiracy theorist or credent, find a reactionary a quarter inch beneath the surface.

      "All institutions have in the long run to live by the nature of things, and not by childish pretendings." - George Bernard Shaw

      by gracchus on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 07:15:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? (none)
    Which people are just bouyantly optimistic and which people are really Rovian trolls?
    •  Sorta Irrelevant (none)
      Relevant only because of intent, but not really in effect.  If the standards fall far enough, it won't matter if it was intentional or inadvertantly self-inflicted.

      It's a good question, and provides an opportunity for me to repeat my motto on ratings, that you rate the comment and not the person.  I'm not saying troll-rate dumb comments, but good intentions shouldn't mean we look the other way.  It just means that we try to be more tactful in telling somebody there's no way in hell what they believe did/will ever happen.  

      •  Armando's Miss Manners (4.00)
        Seriously. A Recommended Diary used this quote:

        ""A key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors says today that claims the government made about Iraq's weapons programme were 'totally implausible'."

        for this headline - "BREAKING - UK Intel Officer Going Public On Faked Intelligence"

        The quote simply does not say that. I commmented -

        "Faked"?  What was the "faked" intelligence.

        I simply do not see how that word can be construed from the quote."

        See? Firm yet civil. I am an example to you all.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:49:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You fell for that too ? (none)
          I was so disappointed when I read the quote.

          I was like .... YESSSS !!!

          and then I was like..... aw.... crap.

        •  Overzealous, maybe (none)
          But the news item was real, and the intelligence that led to this war WAS faked.  

          I don't see what was wrong with the headline.  Seems we're giving him the Howard Dean treatment... he (or she) was right but we think the way it was said was over the top?  Hurting our credibility?

          Sorry, I thought it was a fine diary, and I didn't have a problem with "faked".  

          Everything about this motherfucking administration is faked.  

          The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

          by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:05:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmmm (none)
            So WHERE does the story say ther intelligrnce was FAKED?

            Indeed, where is ANY evidence that INTELLIGENCE was faked?

            Hell, you can't even prove Bush pretended to be smart.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:07:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Niger uranium claims (4.00)

              WMD intel=faked (bought hook line and sinker from exile stooges)

              Chalabi info=faked

              Powell throws UN presentation into air and says, "this is bullshit" (US News & World Report)

              I can't believe I'm explaining this to one of the stars of Kos.  You don't think intel was faked?

              I didn't say the article said the intelligence was faked.  I said the poster (as a side note I am defending someone who troll rated me on his diary!) was not out of line in saying, "hey, here is another piece of evidence that all of this intelligence was faked."

              That's the way I read it.  The article doesn't suggest intel was faked but DOES suggest that no reasonable person would see Iraq as a threat to the UK or US.

              The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

              by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:13:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One at a time (none)
                There are suspicions that Niger was faked. But evidence? Evidence of BushCo involvement? Not there.

                Moreover, as I understand it, at the time of the DSM memos, there was no Niger "intelligence. That came later.

                WMD info=Faked. By who? Clinton? That just is not so. It was weak, or barely existent. NOT FAKED.

                Finally, the diarist titled thatthe UK guy was coming clean on FAKED INTELLIGENCE.

                That was, pure and simple, a falsehood.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:20:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Uncle (none)
                  But I don't think it was a big deal.  I think we are splitting hairs.  You are right in everything you say.  But to me there isn't much of a difference between throwing a bunch of shit out there like Bushco did, not knowing whether it was really true or not, and just plain making the shit up.  One thing that we BOTH agree was faked was the degree of certainty that Bushco had on all of these issues.  Make it up?  Maybe not.  Flat out misused it?  Not a big difference, IMHO.

                  Still love you Armando.  You know a lot more about this shit than I do.  We're one big happy DKOS family.  :)

                  The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                  by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:30:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am a lawyer (none)
                    Evidence is a big deal to me.

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:34:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am a voter (4.00)
                      And I know the lawyers will never get all of the evidence they need to throw Bush's ass in jail.

                      But I know a motherfucking liar when I see one.  

                      A guy who collars his counterterrorism chief and says on 9/12 (forgive if that's not the exact date) "find out if Saddam's in this" and then leaves no stone unturned to make a flimsy case for war against Iraq....

                      I'm not taking him to court.  I am judging him on moral grounds.  

                      So the evidence that YOU seek is not as important to me.  I've got all the evidence I need to know what Bush is.  

                      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                      by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:38:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  then surely you're familiar (none)
                      with the notion of circumstantial evidence.  I hear it can be powerful stuff.
                    •  hmmm (none)
                      Hmmm maybe only lawyers who do things right should post and the rest of us should just read.  I think you guys have been doing this for a long time and your irritability factor is up on high.  There is a certain element to the dailykos where there is no control--I imagine that would get to some people after a while.

                      "I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his convictions is doing the wrong thing."

                      by CrazyDem on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:12:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  well, i'm not a lawyer and i'm getting annoyed... (none)
                        with all the totally non-political "social" diaries - i come here for updates on the business of politics and defeating this admin before it destroys the friggin' earth!

                        maybe the problem could be solved with an additional site for kossocial stuff - but, as for books (i'm guilty, i posted), movies, sports - that pushes the issues off the front.

                        this site is my lifeline to trying to reclaim our very disfuncional country and i would like to see it stay a bit more on track -

                        if possible, could we have a "front page", then a "second page" - then the "social" page?

                        i search for conyers, slaughter, and regulars who break news like kos, armando, apian, susanhu, and others (please forgive the ommissions) - i have limited time and it is very hard with duplicate diaries and non-political ones.

                        sorry, i'm starting to babble - no sleep does that - yet, here i am - searching kos to see what i missed that i need to hammer into the heads of the unsuspecting apolitical who wanders into range...

                        War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Long Live Oceana!

                        by edrie on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:09:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "on track???" (4.00)
                          personally, I'd rather read one personal story than see another bloody diary with Howard Dean's name in the title.  Half the stuff defined as "on track" here is pretty bloody trivial to my mind, including stuff posted on the front page.  

                          In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

                          by a gilas girl on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:44:01 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  i agree that the "dean diaries" are (none)
                            excessive - as are many of the "relevant" diaries - what i'd really like to see is more "news" in one area and more "personal" in another.  

                            i've gotten spoiled, i guess - i use this site as a reference for material i am researching - the links and the accuracy of much of what is reported (or immediate debunking when inaccurate) has spoiled me -

                            it's not that i don't enjoy personal stories - i just wish they were in a separate area or compartment.

                            War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Long Live Oceana!

                            by edrie on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:02:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  On the Niger claim (none)
                  Joe Wilson testified before Conyer's group that his determination that the Niger sale was not substantial was backed up by other intelligence analysts who had different expertise.  And didn't Joe put his two cents in the deal when he saw that Bush was touting that line?  And what did Bush do? Had someone out Joe's wife.  Does that sound innocent to you?  The very outing screams that there was some kind of collusion going on.  Not confusion.  
                  Another person said that the aluminum tubes that were made so much of had a coating (anodized?) that would have to be removed before they could be used as weapons.
                  So there was intelligence out there that contradicted what Bush claimed.  BUT it was also testified to that Cheney did something unprecedented and that was he stood over Tenent's  shoulder while the intell went cross his desk.  The CIA testifying at Conyer's hearing said that the CIA chief failed to provide the analysts support and failed to maintain that arm's length  distance between the CIA and the whitehouse.

                  But this whole thread seems weird to me.  It is my belief that there are a lot of former repubs who now disillusioned are coming onto the blogs for their news just like the rest of us.  But they are bringing their social and fiscal conservative selves as well.  Maybe not trolls, but anal retentive, definitely not enlightened, but uptight and buttoned down.

            •  Ummmm (none)
              Perhaps you forgot about the following (incomplete) list?

              1. Uranium from Niger - forgeries.
              2. British Dossier - copy-pasted from a 10 year old master's thesis
              3. Translations of intercepts - overblown, mistranslated, taken out of context, inflammatory and unrealistic interpretations
              4. Mobile Chemical Labs - Hydrogen Generation trailers with long document trails.
              5. Satellite photos showing "activity" near chemical bunkers - not accurate nor honest representation of the analysts' interpretations
              6. "Terror Camps" - actually small enclave possibly connected with Ansar Al Islam, IN KURDISH TERRITORY...

              And so on and so forth.

              Now, the inflammatory and overinterpretive nature of the headline in question is certainly debatable and should be debated...

              But your question: where is there evidence that any intelligence was faked...

              That, my friend is has been in the bag for a while.

              The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

              by RedDan on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:30:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope (none)
                Disagree from A to Z.

                The reality is if they had FALED intelligence, the case would have been better.

                It simply sucked.

                They didn't fake intelligence, they lied about what the intelligence meant.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:33:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Aluminum Tubes? (4.00)
                  In which they disregarded the analysis of entire swaths of the intelligence community and made up their own analysis to fit?

                  Niger Uranium, in which they relied on faked documents of unknown provenance (which provenance remains disturbingly well-connected to the same cabal of stove-piping Rumsfeldites named Cambone, Franklin, Wolfowitz, and etc?) to bolster interpretations which, again, flew directly in the face of broad swaths of the intelligence community and were essentially invented from whole cloth?

                  No, Armando, you are wrong.

                  There WAS indeed "faked" intelligence...does the use of faked intelligence preclude the tactics you so accurately describe (lying about the meaning of the real intelligence?) not at all.

                  Take a deep breath, think it over, chew on it.

                  The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                  by RedDan on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:40:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  DISREGARDED (none)
                    is not FAKE!!!!

                    Come on Red Dan.

                    that's my point, it was not the intelligence, it was the LYING about it.

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:42:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Cherry-picking (4.00)
                      and made up their own analysis to fit.

                      That's the lying part.

                      That's where our opinions converge.

                      Uranium from Niger? Fake documents badly forged on old paper with the wrong signatures?

                      An intelligence dossier that consists of plagiarized cut and pasted master's thesis work?


                      Earth to Armando?

                      Both things happened.

                      The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                      by RedDan on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:52:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Semantics? (none)
                      Is this argument just hung up on where the "faked" part occurred (i.e., semantics)? I don't see anyone arguing that the CIA analysts faked any intelligence, but it is beyond argument that the Bush Administration "faked" intelligence that they had credible evidence of WMD. (There is a major differnce between "faked" and "planted" as well, and I haven't seen anyone suggesting that either, although some may be interpreting it as such.)

                      The intelligence that was the basis of the "faking" was not in itself "fake", but rather it was weak, and heavily caveated to indicate where it was weak. It was not "intelligence failures" that led us to war, as the 9/11 Commission and BushCo would have us believe, but rather deliberate misuse of the available intelligence by BushCo.  

                      Between the documented forgeries, cherry-picking, misrepresentations, and out-and-out lying done by the administration (and everything else RedDan mentions), the conclusion that the intelligence was "faked" by the Bush administration is a very supportable and reasonable conclusion.

                      "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

                      by DavidW in SF on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:13:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  forgeries = fake (none)
                  New Yorker  On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. "The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei said.

                  One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking."

                  ElBaradei's disclosure has not been disputed by any government or intelligence official in Washington or London. Colin Powell, asked about the forgery during a television interview two days after ElBaradei's report, dismissed the subject by saying, "If that issue is resolved, that issue is resolved."

                •  Well, there is no doubt (none)
                  that they lied.  But it is only a half step between lying and faking.  We can't be 100% certain they didn't actually fake some of the intelligence.  Especially with Chalabi and Curveball et al feeding intel to us.  

                  The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

                  by mikepridmore on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:37:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So your saying (none)
                  that they "faked" the interpretation?

                  It's the Neo-conjob, stupid.

                  by nargel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:42:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Here's where it says so! (4.00)
              Here's the correct article

              I learned this from reading many of the comments. People asked, "what's new about this?" and other people said, "check this article from today's Guardian. This is the one with the goods." From the correct article:

              ("It was an agonised experience because I knew that the evidence they were presenting for WMD was totally implausible. I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too. We all believed the Iraqis had something, but that is very different from saying they had that much. The intelligence indicated that they'd failed to account for what they had in the past. They hadn't given us a complete account of the disposal of their past stocks, so we thought there was something, but there was no way that the claim of an imminent threat was sustainable. The 45-minute stuff was ridiculous.")

              This illustrates perfectly what I love about (uncensored) blogs...if a case is weak, there are plenty of strong voices to counter, and in the back-and-forth of civil discourse - which is rendered impossible at the first o-reilly-esque "you're stupid, shut-up!" - many of us in the background learn a great deal.

              The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - MLK Jr.

              by thecarriest on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:32:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Where does the DSM talk about "faking?" (none)
            Did it talk about "faking" or did it talk about manipulating the intelligence? There a big difference, and we need to get it right in order to stay credible.
            •  The post in question (none)
              (which is still recommended as of my writing this)

              is not about DSM but about another Guardian story about an official saying, no way was Iraq a threat.  

              Look, I agree totally that we have to be credible.  I am just saying that let's not nit pick over titles of diaries.  The diary points to an article in the Guardian which more or less speaks for itself.  

              The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

              by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:16:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, (none)
                depending on your definition of "plausible" i presume, "evidence" means real. for it to also be not plausible does indeed mean it is "fake" for it could not be authentic or it would be de facto plausible.
                •  Ah yes! My Thanks! (none)
                  You are quite a cunning linguist.  

                  Those come in quite handy from time to time.

                  The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                  by daveriegel on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:56:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i still can't say it well (none)
                    looking at it the next day.

                    i suppose i could in a paragraph. i wish we could edit posts.

                    it's absurd what is happening here. the diary was mainstream in seeking readers. but someone who is very conservative masturbates an absurd diary title, a paragraph long in all caps, to whine for attention fopr his own smug opinion with his typical patronizing and condescending tack.

              •  I'm a nitpicker (none)
                Just in the title alone there are three errors:

                Breaking -- This story has first reported last October in the Sunday Times. Granted Carne Ross didn't at that time provide as many details for the reason for his resignation. But it's not really breaking news.

                Intel Officer -- WRONG. Carne Ross was a diplomat. He was First Secretary (Middle East) in Britain's delegation to the Nations.

                Faked Intelligence -- that has already been commented on here. Nowhere in the piece linked to does it say that the intelligence was faked.

                Then there is a two line quote in the diary but instead of providing a link to the source (the article in today's Guardian), the diarist links instead to AmericaSedition. Was he too lazy to follow the link back to the Guardian?

          •  oh no! (none)

            we DO have a mole!

          •  It doesn't say (none)
            that a British intelligence official is going to come out and publicly say the intel is faked.  He is a diplomat, and he finds the gov't's claims "totally implausible."  There is a difference.  I also found many of them totally implausible.  But that doesn't mean either of us in in a position to say that they were "faked," as opposed to "wildly optimistic,"  or the analyst "seeing what he wanted to believe."  Just like people here.

            Maybe the diplomat isn't in a position to say the intel weas faked.  But the article didn't say that.  Understanding these subtle differences will clue you in to when there is enough evidence.

            Good job, DH.

            "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

            by Mimikatz on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:09:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Keep up those losing ways (none)
          You are quibbling over the use of "fake."  I love it!  This type of conversation never takes place on Freep, and they keep winning.  The full quote goes
          "I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too".

          That last part is in bold because if everybody knew that the claims were implausible then they were faking the results of the intelligence.  We all know this stuff is true, but we aren't allowed to say it without some smoking gun that will never exist.

          Conspiracies occur through implicit arrangements.  There wasn't a meeting with Cheney and Halliburton where they said, "Okay, we'll invade Iraq and you guys get all the big contracts."  If there was, there certainly won't be secret tapes of it.  We are letting our country be destroyed through our fear of being marginalized as "conspiracy nuts," and our inability to stick on message rather than stick it to each other.

          We need a chorus of voices calling these people for the liars that they are, not sitting around constructing the proper verbage and waiting for a smoking gun that will never come.

          •  I agree (none)
            Also would like to add that "intelligence" is not merely data but interpreted data.  In that sense, the intelligence that justified the war definitely was "faked."  As we all know, the interpretation was "fixed around the policy" - i.e. falsified.  That 'the intelligence was being fixed' didn't mean that agents were out planting bogus evidence but that the process of interpretation was being falsified (fixed, rigged, tilted) so as to generate conclusions in support of the intended policy.  It makes far more sense to fake interpretation than to plant bogus data.

            For example: the aluminum tubes were real, but the interpretation of the tubes was distorted to support a preconceived conclusion.  Therefore, the intelligence concerning the tubes was fake, even though the tubes themselves were not.  There was no need to fake the tubes, but only to fake their interpretation.  That's the whole freakin' point.  Why plant evidence when you can just make a bunch of convenient errors in interpretation that can be investigated long after the fact?

            Same thing goes for the 'mobile germ factories.'  There really were trailers, but the interpretation of the trailers was faked.  

            By focusing on the reality of those objects that were falsely interpreted some people are missing the forest for the trees.  The overarching strategy of the Administration is deceptive interpretation.

            There ought to be a science of discontent.

            by dreamsign on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:18:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's my point, dude (none)
            I said upthread that they were give this diarist the Howard Dean treatment.

            One thing that is interesting though...

            I haven't seen the diarist on THIS thread to defend himself.

            The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

            by daveriegel on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:10:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe: (none)
        We should give such posters 2's and tell them why if they're unrealistic.

        But I'm glad we're more overexuberant than the other way around. The mood in this place can turn around in a heartbeat; remember the pie fights?

        •  Exuberance is good (none)
          Sometimes people are over the top. We are only human!

          Myself, I'm only just smart enough to realize how terribly stupid I can be. I hoped to outgrow that, but it didn't happen. damn!

          Is the site infiltrated?  Well, it would be unrealistic to assume that they aren't going to check out the competition (we do too) and quite possibly post some too. Did you want to live in a free country? You have to expect not everyone will agree, or have sensible ideas all the time.

          This is a great site!

      •  Prophet DHinMI (4.00)
        can you tell me if I will hit the lottery,
        or am I wasting my time?
      •  asdf (none)
        I confess at first glance, I sometimes fall for snarky/satire-ish diaries.  That's how hungry I am for good news. Luckily, I usually catch on in time to protect my image of myself as someone not easily duped. However, once or twice, it has taken a comment to wake me up.

        I have a certain measured amount of faith in this community as a whole.  I think we self-police pretty well.  Questions and doubts are voiced pretty quickly by somebody or other, sooner rather than later.  Of course, we are subject to viral behavior. Pie fights and such. But enough people have been coming here long enough and alertly enough to check the bullshit most of the time.  Most of the time.

        Diaries like this help.  A lot.

        Then, again, what do I know? I'm a flower.

  •  There should be a way to unrecommend diaries (4.00)
    even if you haven't recommended them.
  •  Dairies need a ratings feature... (none)
    just like comments. That function has been needed from the start.
    Yes! purple alients from jupiter! The most well known - and powerful - is, of course, barney the dinosaur.  But he isn't the only one!


    Vote Harold Ford, Jr - Because at least he doesn't have an (R) next to his name. (TN-1)

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:44:59 PM PDT

  •  Papers (3.87)
    OK I want to see everybodies Liberal Credentials right now.
    And don't think  I won't recognize forgeries.

    Ask not what your country can do for you....

    by khirkhib on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:46:07 PM PDT

  •  I will play devil's advocate (4.00)
    I respect the arguments that impeachment is a long shot, to say the least.  But you know, these diaries are good for morale, and that does serve an important function.  If people want to jump up and down and get excited because they think dkos is going to bring down the President, they might be getting a little full of themselves, but you know what?  I'm not going to be their Debbie Downer.

    A lot of what we do here is channel people's enthusiasm and energy in positive ways, and that's great.  In a way, I know that's exactly what DHinMI is trying to do with this very diary.  I'm just saying, it's a mistake to think that if someone wasn't posting on a diary about impeachment, they'd be out there marching on Washington or giving thousands of dollars to defeat Tom DeLay or something like that.  Blowing off steam and engaging in a little rah-rah now and then is a legitimate part of what we're about, and I'm not going to pooh-pooh anyone's rah-rah.

    My point doesn't really apply to things like the 9000 dead rumor, which I do think is unproductive for the community - but again, it's not a mortal sin for someone to ask "is this true?"  Someone posts a diary, 5 or 10 people show up to explain that it's been thoroughly debunked, it gets annoying after a while (and hopefully it will stop now that it's been addressed on the front page) but it's not the end of the world.  A lot of crazy conspiracy theories get air time around here but at the end of the day, it would be boring if we all believed the exact same stuff.

    I think the point of this diary is well-taken but I also don't want to discourage people from getting enthused and doing a bit of dreaming about a better world, because I do have faith we can make that happen, in one form or another.

    •  Fantasy Is Bad for Morale (4.00)
      It builds unrealistic expectations, which when unfulfilled lead to greater disillusionment.  
      •  Fantasy is OK if your Reality is in good shape. (none)
        Is it?

        Well, is it?

        Don't trust 'em no farther than you can throe 'em.

        by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:11:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Egad! (none)
        Taken completely out of context (which is fun, after all), this sounds exactly like what I was told about sex in Sunday School!
      •  Ruins my morale (4.00)
        I am getting tired of self important diaries thinking that us crazy liberals don't have to compromise with the rest of America if we want to run the country.  We seem to go around with purity tests which chance day by day and ensure that every senator fails.  As far as I can tell every Senator the right of Boxer has been called a DINO on this blog.  And there is a recurring theme the Obama has let us down.

        If we want to be a political force, we need to remember that we are not mainstream.  Not even mainstream Dems.  We are a self selected lot of interested observers which can make a difference but we need to be realistic.  We need to remember that we are an echo chamber, there are a lot more people who aren't hear and they are just as American as we are.

        I am pretty liberal in principle, but I believe in compromise as a principle.  If we want to win, and if we want to govern we need to take the needs and issues of of the entire country into account.  To do otherwise is to imitate the current regime and tear the country apart.  Call me a Vichy, call me a moderate, call me a DINO, but that is what I think we need as a party but more importantly as a country.

        Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good-Howard Dean

        by Luam on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:23:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  People (none)
          need to hear more conflicting opinions here as well.  Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed that people are less and less likely to take unpopular positions in a lot of these discussions, which makes the conversations less and less interesting.  I was reading the old threads on the Milbank piece last night.  Everyone was piling on Milbank and only two people actually said that the maybe the way the Democrats held their mock hearing, the witnesses they invited etc etc., wasn't very politically savvy.

          Venting is good.  Milbank deserved it.  But sometimes discussion here just becomes a question of who can preach loudest to the choir.  All this "purity" talk makes me ill.

          Really, this is a debate about the role govenment should play in defining the boundaries of appropriate business ethics -- Eliot Spitzer

          by tlaura on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:20:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hear, hear (none)
        Thanks for this diary.  I haven't had time to keep up with everything lately but I saw the "dKos will bring down Bush" diary and kind of rolled my eyes - you all can't be serious!

        I don't think we need to blame Republican dirty tricksters (there are a few around here, but I don't particularly care) for this place's occasional departure from the reality-based community.  It happens periodically, doesn't it?  Stuff like the absolute certitude that Dean would win Iowa, the whole Fraudster debacle..  And no, it's not good for morale to have this kind of myopia - it just means that the inevitable collision with political reality will be that much more painful, and everyone will get all angry about it & remain in denial longer than necessary..

        Fight this generation, fight this generation...

        by daria g on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:19:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. (none)
      If people want to post the "9000 dead" theory as a diary, they also risk 100 people coming along to post contrary opinions.  By being open to discussion, we allow each reader to separate well-researched diaries from half-assed ones.
      •  Except (none)
        It is a complete and utter waste of time.  Plus it takes up a slot on the reclist, and the time of the frustrated debunkers, whose competent brains would have greater utility elsewhere.  Opportunity cost.

        Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

        by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What's more important than this? (4.00)
          Do you really think all 50,000 of us have your elegant, polished, sophisticated, and oh-so-discerning wisdom?

          Does it ever occur to you that your blogmates are the ones you're in the trenches with in this fight? Do you really want to ridicule rather than educate the people who may one day be tasked with watching your back?

          Think. Even if it hurts.

          The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - MLK Jr.

          by thecarriest on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:39:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  huh (none)
            I don't know you, so I'm curious why you took it personally.

            If you knew me, you'd know that I have patience for those with open minds.  And compared to many, I've spent a huge amount of time participating in respectful conversations with people who had the wrong idea about things.

            But I get really frustrated when people are going down roads that undermine their actual goals, and then refuse to listen when that's pointed out.  I'll attack absolutism and close-mindedness, no question.  I'll keep doing it.  Their delusions are a waste of my time, yes, but more importantly, they undermine the principles and goals of the people holding on to the delusions.  Maybe some of these folks are a lost cause, but the people that listen to them aren't.

            Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

            by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:00:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  By this logic (none)
          95% of the diaries on this site are a waste of time.

          In fact, we all should be off doing something more important.  BAN ALL DIARIES!!


          C'mon, all is not lost.  At the very least, some people learn from the debunking.

      •  Except some people don't (none)
        even consider that it's bogus. I looked up tbr, the "news" site that is pushing it, and their the same idiots who push the "Israeli's knew about 9/11 ahead of time."

        Today Ed Schultz had at least three people call and push the story. I tried to get them to look at Pat K's comment Markos posted today but called too late. So now all of these people that were listening are telling their friends the story.

        This admin lies enough without us having to make shit up. And like they always do they will latch onto something like this to discredit every other exposure. It's playing right into their hands.

    •  But how about building up ... (4.00)
      ...morale around political action we can actually accomplish?

      Sure, I'd love to see Bush and Cheney impeached, convicted, frog-marched out of the White House and down Pennsylvania Avenue to the catcalls and tomato tosses of the crowd, driven to Andrews Air Force Base, chained to the ceiling of a C-5 Galaxy and flown directly to The Hague where they will share a cell with Slobodan Milosevic until their internationally televised trial can be arranged.
      That would certainly boost MY morale. And I can dream, can't I?

      But when people start talking seriously about how impeachment is a realistic option, I can only think of the rah-rah we've been getting from the Bush Administration about our success in Iraq. It's crazy bullshit and it dilutes rather than enhances our political efforts to begin reversing the trend of more conservative government that began in 1980 and was barely neutralized by Clinton's four years.



      Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

      Visit The Next Hurrah

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:02:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  missing word ... (none)
        ...Clinton's FIRST four years.


        Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

        Visit The Next Hurrah

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:04:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none)
        but the point is, it is up to all of us to offer those other, constructive outlets, rather than simply tell people to stop engaging in what we consider the unconstructive outlets.

        Anyway, given the extent to which the word "impeachment" dominated Rep. Conyers' hearing last week, I hesitate to tell anyone that the word is off limits.

        In any event, as my comment said, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to assume that the 15 seconds someone spends posting a pro-impeachment comment could be productively spent elsewhere.  Heck, I had like 20 posts last night on the NBA Finals thread.  Should we discourage the posting of sports threads?  Should we discourage C&J?

      •  Gear up for . . . (none)
        what's next?

        Social Security is coming back. GOP has "new" plan - steal the Trust Fund.

        SCOTUS will be front burner soon.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:28:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  At the risk of posting something (none)
      absolutely worthless...

      I really loved the comment about pooh-poohing the rah-rah.  A million chimp-faced speechrighters will never come up with that.


      The Axis of Evil runs somewhere between K Street and Constitution Avenue.

      by DanielMN on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:28:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Me too (none)
    I can literally smell a repug.  OTOH, getting off our butts and actually doing something rather than agree with each other is a great idea.  I promise to get off my butt -- tomorrow!  
  •  Diaries are for personal contributions. (4.00)
    Diaries (and comments) make this a community-based site.  Who constructs this reality-based filter, anyway?  
    •  The Community (none)
      dh is exhorting the Community to do that.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:51:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  pattern (4.00)
        I think it fits the pattern, though, of

        a) respected community member reminding community of standards
        b) community temporarily improving standards, before...
        c) structure of community leads to a devolved set of standards again

        What it really needs is a structural solution of some sort.  I'm not sure what.  A better tied-in reference section summarizing past conclusions would be good - it's pretty hard to find all-star diaries from the past.  But in general, if a large community is going to reward smart content and good insights, the moderation features are going to have to move more in the direction of meritocracy than straight democracy.

        Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

        by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:19:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm (none)
          I am hearing galiel there.

          And that is a compliment. I always thought he was on to something there. But he would never explain how to do it.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:23:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  shoot, you're right. (4.00)
            I liked galiel.  What happened to him?

            There's a great book called "The Wisdom Of Crowds".  It talks about how to have smart mobs.  You need:

            1. diversity of opinion
            2. independence of members from one another
            3. decentralization
            4. a good method of aggregating opinion

            (From the blurb:) The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in charge.

            If any part of that fails, you get groupthink-ish stuff.  Not sure where we're failing.  In some ways we're not great at diversity of opinion.  But really the bigger problem is that many of the opinions here are just uninformed.  I think it's honestly just that we have the cycle of receiving neophytes, while experts leave.  People become experts, and then resent having to school people.  What we don't have is a really good retention of knowledge that new members can easily draw off of.

            The wiki was supposed to help with that, but it ended up not a great fit.  Honestly, I think a souped-up archive search system would help a lot, along with an easier ability for the community to classify certain notable entries - like, "best of dkos"; recommendations that don't expire.

            I also think we need more debates.  Honest to god debates of two strong-willed members being featured in a back-and-forth diary, fully exploring ideas through confrontation, their writings on display for the rest of the community to react and learn from.

            As far as meritocracy, I think a souped up "Trusted Users" thing would help.  People that are given trusted editorial control, to have a greater say in what sorts of content are featured on the reclist.

            Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

            by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:46:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  How about an independent DKos Hall of Fame site (none)
            that keeps track of those all-star diaries?

            Only problem is defining what an all-star diary is.

  •  Feh; there are weirdos everywhere... (4.00)
    why should this blog be the exception to the rule?  piffle!

    I use my imaginary Ignore Button -- works great --try it sometime ;)

    ...Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things....

    by PhillyGal on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:47:18 PM PDT

    •  I broke mine and customer service sucks (none)

      I use my imaginary Ignore Button
    •  Because (none)
      this is getting to be a seriously high-profile site?

      I certainly don't want to stifle anyone's freedom of expression, but people do need to think a little bit about, and have some respect for,  the "image" of dKos.

      •  That sounds kinda republican (none)
        I think democratic strength comes from the people themselves.  When we start to think of ourselves as institutions in need of image protection we wander out toward that slippery slope.

        "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

        by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:47:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey Omar (none)
          In addition to having poorly thought out diaries lately, we are having a bad spate of ratings abuse.  My comment in no way warrants a 1.  I'm sorry if you don't like the comment, but ratings are used to downrate offensive comments and uprate good ones.  Using them as punishment for comments you disagree with is part of the problem.  How about we all try and be part of the solution instead.


          "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

          by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:41:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'd say (4.00)
    it's not dirty tricks.  Just run-of-the-mill blog triumphalism and opinion cocooning.

    I agree that we shouldn't recommend a diary unless it passes our rigorous standards for logic and evidence.  But, were Rove to game the system, I think he'd come up with something potentially more damaging (perhaps that's an ominous indication to be on the lookout for signs of such a thing in the future).

  •  There needs to be an "anti-recommend" (4.00)
    ... where utterly ridiculous diaries can be zapped into the netherworld, like zero-rated comments.

    That would solve this issue completely.

    This is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

    by socal on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:48:10 PM PDT

    •  I agree and doubt . . . (4.00)

      . . . such would be used very much, only in the very unproductive-to-the-discourse situations.

       I've gotten "into it" with maybe a 1/2 dozen people on this site (two of them on this page) and, yet, amidst all of the e-raging we've done at one another, we never (and no spectator ever) "troll rated" the other's comment.  Of course, mine weren't "Troll Rated" because they made sense, the others' weren't because I was magnanamous! ;-)

       At any rate, I doubt such a "feature" would be abused, but it could be used to de-clutter some of the diaries that are pretty much wasted cyberspace.

       By the way, you're walking down a long hallway, that goes down, down, down, and turns into steps going further down, down, you feel very good and relaxed and are enjoying going down, down, down, and now you want to rate this comment, rate it, rate it, rate it, whatever you think is right, just relax and rate it, rate it, rate it . . .


      . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:55:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  unrecommend (4.00)
      I think an unrecommend-without-recommend wouldn't work because it would just lessen the chance that controversial-yet-good content would ever be featured.  It doesn't help solve groupthink.

      But, if it were something where only Trusted Users had access to that button, then... that might have possibilities.  Especially if we kept a reasonable level of control over who becomes Trusted Users.

      Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

      by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:22:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe a good start (4.00)
        ... would be that any diary title that uses ALL CAPS IN ITS TITLE and/or uses "BREAKING" in the title gets automatically sent to the same dark closet as the "hidden comments".  :D

        Seriously, though, it would be nice to find a mechanism to cut back on some of the juvenile or outright paranoid or otherwise awful diaries, and the unfortunate tendency of some to push those diaries onto the recommended list.  If it's not an "un-recommend" button, then there really ought to be another solution.

        This is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

        by socal on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:13:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here we go again . . . (4.00)
    . . . get your flame-war protective gear on, fellow Kossacks! I can already hear the "Is too!"/"Is not!" insults flying.

    Seriously, though, I'm recommending this diary because I agree with DH that some of the stuff posted in DailyKos diaries over the past few months is out in la-la land. Could it be Republican double-agents trying to limit our credibility? Beats me, but it wouldn't at all surprise me. It doesn't mean that we should be rude and nasty to posters who we as individuals happen to think are unrealistic, but it does mean that perhaps we should use the "recommended" button a bit less around here.

    •  Good Point (none)
      We don't need to be rude, but we do need to be vigilant and occassionally persistent.
    •  I forget, did any of the 9000 (none)
      desd soldiers diaries get to the rec list? Or the WTC-7-was-demolished stories? I'm kind of hoping they didn't.
    •  Fake tin foil hats (4.00)
      I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that there are GOP agents provocateur posting weird conspiracy theories here. The only weird conspiracy theory going around today is the one in this diary. Or perhaps "weird" isn't the right word -- maybe "cynical" is. Is everyone who posts a diary that "the community" (read: management) finds objectionable going to be accused of working for Karl Rove now? That's convenient, isn't it?

      There's something more than a little chilling about the notion of an inner core of users manipulating the discourse for the purpose of maintaining appearances. It would be far more honest and far less objectionable if dKos simply switched over to having centralized moderation instead of doing so covertly and attempting to maintain the appearance of a genuinely open forum.

      Before anyone grabs their flamethrower, let me make clear that I don't think there's anything objectionable about centralized moderation -- as long as it's out in the open. It's just trying to have it both ways that lacks integrity. DailyKos has been evolving rather rapidly towards tighter controls for some months now; why not just be upfront about it?

      The kooks, after all, we shall have with us always. But if you don't want the kooks, actually hustle them off stage in full view rather than make it look like they faded away of their own volition.

      Support Our Troops: Send the Commander-in-Chief to the Front!

      by eodell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:18:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Covertly? (none)
        Jeeze, in a diary imploring people to openly oppose trite conspiracy theories thorugh open questioning of specious conclusions and poor presentation of fact and ignorance of context, you assert that the diary itself is part of a plot?

        Are you being ironic, or did you fail to separate out what in my post what was meant to be ironic and what wasn't?  

  •  netiquette (4.00)
    On interactive forums there are several social structures that can be used to prevent the most extreme abuses.

    Several sites use moderaters, some use a rating system, some, like slashdot, use an evaluation system. The original discussion forum (Usenet) uses social pressure. When someone gets out of line, other posters criticize them. Sometimes this works, but in many cases it just energizes the disrupter.
    These people are usuall called trolls, and the operative phrase is "do not feed the trolls".
    Usenet has reader tools so that a person can filter out postings that they find unhelpful.

    I think one of the valuable features of the left-leaning blogs is that they permit a range of viewpoints, including provocateurs. The rightwing ones are more concerned with staying on message and ban people that don't follow the party line.

    So I think the proper course is to not rise to the  bait, but be grateful that there are still some venues that respect freedom of thought.

    Musings on Society: policies not politics

    by robertdfeinman on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:53:47 PM PDT

    •  Metamoderation! (4.00)
      I'd love to see something like Slashdot's metamoderation implemented here - for those not familiar, on Slashdot you are semi-randomly awarded moderation points which you can use to rate comments in a way similiar to here. There is a whole other layer on top of that in which any registered user can rate the appropriateness of those moderations. In effect it's a double-check on how people are using their points. It's great for weeding out abuse of the moderation system. It'd be a little difficult to implement here since everyone gets points all the time, but I imagine a little planning could put together something effective - perhaps by focusing on diary recommendations and/or or only on troll ratings.
       On Slashdot if you are frequently metamoderated as misusing the moderation system you end up not being able to moderate and can get flagged for investigation as a troll - we could use something like that here.
    •  Usenet is/was Hopeless (none)
      Culture handles this via communication in a number of different channels simultaneously. We use a variety of tone of voice, body language and movement of bodies to and from gatherings, none of which needs to interfere directly with a discussion.

      If discussion strains or breaks down, in culture we have glances and tone and people leaning or stepping slightly inward or outward--which gives us the bandwidth to convey a sense of the community or of one or more individuals to offenders, and to maintain and display leadership to even very new arrivals.

      On Usenet the only remedy for bad discussion is further discussion. My long experience there and with listservs is that they're decent forums for strong, argumentative personalities, but that they drive away by the droves much of the many other kinds of people that make up real communities.

      There sometimes very little more destructive to online creative and artistic groups and other senstivive communities than the classic flamewarring of Usenet and listserv.

      At least here we have one effective nonverbal channel in the ratings.

      Longerm, online communities will need more nonverbal channels and bandwidth before they can become comfortable for many 3-dimensional kinds of communities.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:48:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, DH. (none)
    I'm sorry to be repetitive, but the LordoftheFliesian, triumphalist, mob mentality around here lately has been quite disturbing. (Okay, maybe it is nothing new.) I had chalked it up to the possiblity that many of the more grown-up members of the community had moved on or were taking a respite, but maybe your theory has something going for it.
  •  One thing you forget . . . (none)
    Is that we CREATE OUR OWN REALITY.  I want Bush impeached in my reality.  So, therefore, I believe he will be.  My thought wave brings it closer to reality.

    So, even if he is not impeached, I believe that he is wounded.  Anything to help stop his assinine foreign policy, war and torture.  He does not represent me.  Far from it.

    "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire

    by FLPeach on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:55:30 PM PDT

  •  Republican fantasists. (4.00)
    Hmmmm. Sounds like the premise for a Philip K. Dick novel...

    There are, unfortunately among us many, MANY whose words serve to further embolden and empower the right in their marginalizing us. I think the phrase you're searching for is "With friends like these..."

    No, YOU need to mow the lawn.

    by PBJ Diddy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:56:09 PM PDT

  •  ahem (4.00)
    I actually tend to avoid diaries with BREAKING!!!! screaming in the title, and almost missed this....
  •  Here's why I don't see a problem with this. (none)
    You've got to aim for the stars, people. You may fall short, but you'll most likely end up higher than if you just aimed for the tops of the trees.

    This tactic has worked for me in my life... and as for how successful it's been? Well, let's just say that I've got a much cooler and more fun life than anyway I went to high school with.


    by modchick65 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:57:52 PM PDT

    •  You've got to aim to find the space alien (none)
      conspiracy to control the government in order to find a corrupt congressman?  Not sure that analogy works for fantasy diaries.
      •  Huh? (none)
        What are you talking about... space aliens and conspiracy theorists? Where did that come from? Do you not understand metaphor?

        Fine, if you want non-metaphors: Aim for impeachment, but maybe settle for censure and, as a result, tainting the guy and convincing a whole load of previous sheeple that the guy is a crock of shit.

        WALTHAM ROCKS...

        by modchick65 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:13:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This diary is about fantasy (none)
          and the tenuous connection to reality around here lately.  The point is to convince people to remain grounded and not skip over doing the important things here on the ground in favor of trying to catch falling stars.  It's about not losing focus on local politics in order to expend all your energies working toward impeachement.  This doesn't mean that people should give up on impeachment, just that they should be reasonable about the chances and not miss out on everything else that can make a difference.
  •  Impeachment (4.00)
    It doesn't bother me when people talk about impeachment, because it's an interesting discussion to have when put in contrast to the last presidential impeachment, although you may be right that the odds of it happening now are slim to none.

    As for the other stuff, sometimes I get really paranoid when I'm reading comments, that Republicans are egging on the most ludicrous and half-backed notions that Kossacks come up with.  But I usually only think that when I'm high.

    "A simple lie will be believed by more people than a complex truth." - TrueBlueMajority

    by starkness on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:59:16 PM PDT

    •  I concur (none)
      I'm not necessarily opposed to the discussion of impeachment, but I really do think that it is naive of people to make claims that some future event will happen just because they hope it will.
  •  This is probably going to sound (4.00)
    smarmy and preachy, but I really do think that people are ungrateful about this free and unfettered access to readers.  

    Why would anyone not feel obligated to hear a reasonable request to not make the site look like their version of all the crazy, malicious rumors during the Clinton years, since nothing else is being asked of them really.  No work involved to the users, but a constant availabilty to readers where their thoughts and information can be used or discussed?

    So, why wouldn't they want to be careful about what they put out here?

    Issues aren't the issue, it's the hyperventialating treatment of issues and the embrace of the bizarre.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

    by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:59:30 PM PDT

    •  Bingo (none)
      Yup, it's not the issues, it's the often shoddy treatment of issues that's the problem.

      Is impeachment a worthy subject to ponder?  Sure, of course.  Is it defensible to predict that Bush will be impeached on the basis of the DSM, and/or that Daily Kos will be a major impetus to the impeachment?  Nope, not even close.

      •  Einstein on group think (4.00)
        Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.

        - Albert Einstein

        What is a defensible predition? Or a "worthy subject"?  And who is the arbiter? When a community becomes a echo chamber for conventional wisdom, inspiration, creativity and progress die.

        I'll take my inspiration from Einstein, Ghandi, Dr. King over Eeyore any day.

    •  Wha? (none)
      How is hopeful (and, let's be honest, harmless) fantasy even comparable to malicious rumormongering?

      Without hope, we have nothing.  Hope motivates, if nothing else.  And where is the showing that engaging in this pernicious diary-writing and -recommending </sardonicism> is either (1) harming dKos in any way, and/or (2) mutually exclusive to the kind-of take-action activities that DHinMI says we should be doing.

      And, frankly, it all strikes me as a little arrogant and imperious.

      •  If it's treated as hopeful fantasy (none)
        that doesn't dressup like
        BREAKING NEWS!!!!
        BOOK 'EM, DANO

        Then it's Ok.  But, I get the feeling that whatever some of us suggest as OK, or not OK, is unwelcome because it's arrogant and imperious to you.

        It does harm Dailykos.  We look irresponsible and unserious.  Credibility is crucial to being listened to.

        "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

        by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:34:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  C'mon (none)
          Trade Center brought down by explosives:  fringe.

          GOP Congress will impeach Bush:  Improbable, and hopelessly Pollyanna, even worthy of dismissing outright, but fringe?  No.

          dKos will help bring down the Bush administration:  Hasn't it already?  Even if the administration didn't go any lower than it is right now, dKos helped bring it down to where it is.

          A little perspective.  Occasional rah-rah recommended diaries, even those that are worthy of nothing more than a smirk and a chuckle, are not hurting our credibility.

          •  See, I think I'm the one (none)
            with perspective...

            I don't see us coming to agreement on this.
            I think what is being asked for is reasonable, you think it's arrogant and stifling.  I think it's malicious to say Bush did 9/11.

            You think it's what?  probable?  possible?  Not in anyway comparable to saying Hillary killed Vince Foster and Clinton killed everybody in Arkansas that got in the way of his drug running out the Mena airport?  I mean maybe you didn't care when they hawked videos saying the 42nd president was a murderer.. Maybe you believed some of it, I don't know.  The point is I don't think a lot of people pushing conspiracies believe them or even care if they are true, they are just unthinkingly wishing and hoping, throwing stuff against the wall hoping it sticks so stuck that they can drive the final nail in the coffin of Bush and Co.  I think that's wrong.

            "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

            by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:12:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Cathy (none)
              did you do that on purpose?  I mean the whole straw man thing?

              You'll note that it put the "Trade Center brought down by explosives" in the "fringe" category.  You could assume (correctly) that I would feel the same way about a Government-9/11-conspiracy-theory thing.  Yet it is the only issue you address, while the diary itself lumps in with these "fringe" subjects things that aren't fringe but are, rather, "unrealistic."  What say you to that?

              By the way, all of the "fringe" 9/11-conspiracy diaries were widely panned, even by me, and none made the recommended list.  So this diary isn't really about them, is it?

              •  Well, no,you wanted to know what (none)
                I thought was malicious. I gave an example of what is a malicious rumor to me and a comparison of why it's not OK to me to engage in that as "harmless".

                The issue of impeachment?  It isn't likely, frankly,  But, what I think would be better would be all the issues that might lead to articles of impeachment, if it were.

                I don't think fantasy is healthy and only artifically lifts spirits. I said in the first comments you responded to that issues are not the issue.  I don't feel the need to bless whatever issues people want to talk about, I suggested that the way they were discussed is important.

                This diary is among other things about 9,000 GI's dead, Bush did 9/11 and a willingness to believe the improbable.

                "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

                by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:37:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  9-11 was an inside job (none)
            You think this overwhelming evidence is fringe? Check out Alex Jones' "9-11: Road to Tyranny" before you answer.
        •  Oh, (none)
          But, I get the feeling that whatever some of us suggest as OK, or not OK, is unwelcome because it's arrogant and imperious to you.

          My default is almost always in favor of allowing someone to post what they want and recommend what they want.  I read this diary as an exhortation to conform rather than the presentation of an alternate viewpoint.

  •  Allright, I admit it... (4.00)
    I'm a Rovian plant.  Wanna make something of it?
  •  Regarding Kos: (4.00)
    I don't think we should fall into the trap of claiming all the credit for ourselves. That is dangerous and leads to us being shunned by other Progressive communities. There are plenty of other Progressive communities out there.
  •  But I LOVE recommending goofball diaries! (3.00)
    What am I s'pose to do now? Boycott 'em? Send 'em abusive e-mail?

    Don't trust 'em no farther than you can throe 'em.

    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:02:25 PM PDT

  •  Machiavelli - maybe we should lie (4.00)
    Oh sure it's little green men are silly.

    But I'm starting to think lying isn't such a bad Idea...why?  because it works for the right.

    Drudge just photoshopped a photo Clinton kissing some women, completely fake(crooks and liars just debunked it)...and he's done before.

    Then there's his other clinton lies.

    then there's Powerwhine et. al. and the Terry Schaivo, Talking Points conspiracy theory.

    Now you have blogs just making shit up about Durbin.

    Has it hurt any of them?   Even WaPo's ombudsman decided to defend Kurtz for drinking the kool-aid.  Is traffic on Powerwhine down since the Schaivo debacle?

    We had some clown peddling a book last week saying Iran was behind 9-11 and is harboring Bin Laden.  He got treated with respect by Lou Dobbs and Jon Stewart, and probably others.  Talk about wild conspiracy theories...and he got away with it.

    Then Curt Weldon is going around peddling a book saying that Iran is going to launch terror attacks on the US and he got treated with respect by Russert and Wolf, and probably others.  Talk about wild conspiracy theories..and he got away with it.

    Riddle me this Batman - if lying is wrong, then why has it worked so well for the right in getting a "message" imprinted on the public?

    Or at the least why haven't they paid a price for their lying?  

    Why are we in Iraq?

    Because 69% of the country answered that Iraq was behind the terror attacks of 9-11, in a summer 2003, Washington Post Survey.

    And the lied and lied and lied to trick the country to believe that.

    You see various liars from various right wing quarters lie about everything - it's part of their neo-con doctrine (propaganda):  The Russians looted the Al Qaa Qa weapons depot;  Iraq shipped their WMDs to Syria, across the desert in trucks (Bolton wanted to testify to that, but was stopped, immediately after "mission accomplished");

    And we don't even have to go into all the lies spewed against Kerry and Gore and Clinton.

    They lie around the clock on their radio stations, on their cable shows, on their TV appearances, on their blogs, and in their columns and papers.  They couldn't survive without lies, because their agenda is so unpopular when exposed.  So they cloak it with lies to sneek it through:  "clean skies" - "healthy forests" - "range and readiness act" -   "patriot act"

    Now I don't believe in lying on every subject - certain not the deaths of US Servicemen.  There are subjects that shouldn't be lied about -  and the deceased  is certainly one of them.  They shouldn't be used.  The Bush neo-cult has already done that.

    But for who long do we stand around while they just lie and lie and lie, and with impunity.  It's also much harder to prove a negative, and to debunk myths and lies.  The neo-cons know this.  Most of them are Trotskyites and Leninists were Gooper clothing, and they have a first hand relationship in using propaganda to influence and control a public.

    What made things worst is how sick and atrophied the general media/press has become.

    Now some will say, don't lower yourself to their level. But that would be wrong conclusion.  Our side wouldn't be lying so we could rape the earth and the middle class.

    At the very least you have to ask yourself: how bad do things have to get, before you give up on counter-measures and begin to considering that lies are successful and they need to be employed if you're going to win in the current environment.

    I've already heard that the reason why we haven't seen them play the "terror alert" card to raise their plummeting poll numbers, is because they're saving that for the summer/fall of 2006...that's right they're saving their lies/propaganda for the mid-terms.

    •  You ask (none)
      "Is traffic on Powerwhine down since the Schaivo debacle?"

      Actually yes.

      And traffic to dailykos has grown enormously.

      Chris Bowers covers it at MYDD.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:06:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hope/No hope (none)
        Those lies are one of the most disturbing elements I see. There has always been some lying in public discourse, even some real need for that on a national security basis at times in our history, but I doubt it has ever reached the current level.

      They get away with it because their own party so rarely calls them on it that it seems sanctioned. The opposition, this site and many others, calls them out, corrects and responds, but it is so piecemeal that it really never reaches public consciousness on a steady basis.

      This is one area where decentralizations would probably work; one site, where the lies are accumulated, deconstructed and projected on an immediate basis. It could be cross-referenced with regard to topic (event), people and policy. I know individual sites do collect such info (Union of Concerned Scientist for manipulated science).  

      So far as I see, nothing has worked because no one is held responsible, from the pres on down.

      Perhaps one of the reasons for the 'fantasy' about Impeachement is the very hope among honorable people that a responsible accounting will be held at some future date for all these liars. However, if you hold that such an outcome will never happen, you are opening yourself to some incredibly dark outcomes. They are about crushing hope; we shouldn't be.

    •  Lieing (none)
      Lieing takes you down the path Bush is on.  Stick to the high road, I say.

      "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

      by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:59:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well (none)
    I still think we should push for impeachment.

    But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be helping GOTV, and I can understand that some freepers would come on here and give everyone false hope or something.

    Still, I think it's something we should work for...and obviously a lot of others agree.

    •  Push who? (4.00)
      Push how?

      See, I don't see the logic here.

      Even I thought we could PROVE impeachable offenses, which I do not, how does it happen? What do you propose?

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:05:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Brainwashing Jim Sensenbrenner (none)
        into thinking he's a Democrat would be a good start.

        Oh, come on. That's no more unrealistic than some of the other crap that's been flying around.

      •  devil's advocate (none)
        I suppose it could be said there is progress in the overall political gestalt if it moves from:

        "Some crazy peacenik liberals are calling for IMPEACHMENT!  Bwahahaha!"


        "There has been a repeated chorus of call for impeachment among the progressive base of the Democratic party, even though it will never happen..."

        I just mean psychologically.  Just in terms of making it less of a ridiculous concept to even consider.  Undermine's Bush's credibility long-term, gives fence-sitters more reason to doubt him if they see a stronger anti-Bush push from the other side.  Etc, etc.

        Still, when I think of opportunity cost, it seems that efforts could be better spent elsewhere.

        Sorry, I'm not being much of a devil's advocate.  ;-)

        Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

        by tunesmith on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:12:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You want to push for impeachment? (none)
      See... you must be a dirty GOP trickster ruining dirty Kos!

      I voted for John Kerry and all I got was this lousy sticker...

      by diplomatic on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:11:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On Impeachment (4.00)
    The first thing I want to say is thank God you weren't around in South Africa 20 years ago, because if you want to talk about long shots...

    The idea that we have this goal of "taking down the president," and that it's sort of like a bulls eye sitting a hundred yards away, and it's pointless to even bother trying because you'll never make it -- that's just not how I see it. I have no goal to take down the president. My goal is restore accountability to the White House. This is a process that must be followed, even if it ends in failure, for the simple reason that it is the correct and just course of action.

    The "chances of success" is irrelevant. We must guide ourselves on principles, not percentages.

    "It is a common delusion that you make things better by talking about them." - Dame Rose Macaulay

    by Zackpunk on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:08:20 PM PDT

  •  The FP aristocracy is at it again (none)
    oppressing the grassroots with your talk of "realism."

    Why, some of the very commenters in this same thread were, last night, thrashing the idea of recalling Bush, with their "unconstitutional" and their "this isn't California we're talking about."

  •  Another way... (none)
    I posit that opening up the discussion and swelling the debate with more average folk is a good move. It means change, but I think it's worth it. Maybe there are ways to preserve some of the "legitimacy" of the past while allowing newbees?

    I think all Kossaks would be wise to view the influx of newbees as a beacon of good news. They should also support everyone to voice their opinion and to initiate discussions they see as interesting. People will get hooked. And that's exactly the kind of thing we want. We WANT average office Joe's and Jane's ducking online to chat on Kos. At least I do.

    As long as no one is being rude or nasty, then I'd like to see Kos open to many discussions. The "Recent Diaries" column seems to move at a good clip, I think there's room for everyone's opinion, no matter how "conspiratorial."

    If Kos wants to keep out the average Joe, then that's a decision Kos will have to make. So far it seems to me that Kos has decided to grow. Those of you who are upset by newbees and "radically crazy" ideas that you don't see as being worthwhile... it seems to me that with the current setup, you will either have to ignore the new comments that don't interest you, engage in ripping apart some flimsy arguments, or maybe find a new place to play if Kos is too frustratingly dumbed down.

    Or you could think up another way... here's my idea, speaking as a newbee.

    I am sorry to hear that the variety of posts on Kos apparently has affected it's "legitimacy."

    Because that's a problem.

    But how can we address it? Maybe some new ideas, like APPROVED POSTS would be a helpful thing to start thinking about. I think it's inevitable that with more newbees, the simple statistics of the RECOMMEND button will affect the site's "academic rigour" and slant this column toward the sensational. Maybe it's time we started to formalize the hierarchy that is implied but somehow not fully realized to the benefit of the site. We shouldn't be ashamed of hierarchy. That's how trees grow.

    " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:11:33 PM PDT

    •  To Me It is Simpler (none)
      More responsibility with the Recommend button.

      An exhortation to the Community.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes... (none)
        that is simpler for people that have your sense of responsibility. You must understand the difference?

        " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:18:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the idea (none)
          is to foster that responsibility in others.  Not add a layer of oversight so they can evade it.

          "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

          by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:38:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah... (none)
            foster away.

            I'm not going to be any newbee-keeper. But if you want, feel free.

            I would posit though that based on your performance last night in our debate that many people from the "old school" might not have the patience (or facts) necessary to really be able to engender the respect required to "train" newbees.

            But maybe you were saving up all your wisdom and patience for someone else and just felt like calling me an "ignorant little liar" wrt words you don't know the meaning of? Here's your post:

            "Occidental means Orient (none / 0)

            My ignorant little liar.  Nothing racist about it."

            If you think you can open the spigot of Kos to the ever increasing demand for reality based information and be able to control all the newbees and their posts by "encouraging them to be responsible," my guest. Let me know how it goes. You didn't do a very good job with this newbee... you just proved that "old school" or "new;" the real difference will come down to people who start the name-calling in the face of factual evidence to discuss.

            This difference seems to be not between "oldschool" and "new" so much as between those who provide facts and links in their discussions and those who only make personal attacks based on their surprisingly racist assumptions that for example: I am a young white American who went on a "crusade" to help build housing in "far off places." Your thinking is very transparent and waaaay off base. It's always shocking to see racism in minorities, but one must remember that racism exists everywhere in everyone at all times. It's a tiger to be controlled and watched and beaten back. But I'm getting tired... and it's not worth talking about much longer.

            I think your proposal is very ironic to say the least, knowing how you handle yourself.

            I'm all for butting some heads and kicking some ass from time to time. But I don't think we should delude ourselves that people have the self-restraint required to be "responsible" as Armando is suggesting... unless you are willing to admit that your last night's performance was very atypical.

            " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

            King Lear

            by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:44:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I said to you before (none)
              Your assumptions about who I am and what my motives are are without foundation.

              You seem to be still smarting from being shown to have perpetrated a falsehood in your own diary.  Which you tried to back up with a report from WHO.  That report shows that what you asserted was false.

              You further assert that the WTC7 building was deliberately blown up to hide CIA files stored there.  An obvious crank position.

              I'm not surprised you eschew personal responsibility.

              "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

              by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:09:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL (none)
                Crack again?

                "You further assert that the WTC7 building was deliberately blown up to hide CIA files stored there.  An obvious crank position."

                You're nuts. Where'd you pull that from? Rush's ass? I dare you to post where you got that... because I've never even talked about the day of 911 on KOS.

                You're unbelievable. Really.... drugs? Is it drugs?

                " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

                King Lear

                by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:18:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Norwell, I apologize (none)
                  I looked back through the threads I was involved in last night and I was wrong.  I mixed up two different conversations I was involved in.  You are right, you did not write the WTC7 diary.  I'm sorry I falsely attributed that to you.  Please accept my apologies.

                  "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

                  by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:29:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I love you man... (none)
                    When you finally get to giving an apology, it's a good one.

                    Ta and thanks. I appreciate you looking back and stating that you made a mistake.

                    " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

                    King Lear

                    by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:37:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  And (none)
              Occidental means western, not Oriental.  A mistake I made, and which you corrected, and I admitted to.  Thank you again for correcting it.

              "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

              by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:14:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey... (none)
                it's just that you admitted you were wrong and then called me a "coward" for requesting an apology for calling me "ignorant" because of your mistake.

                So rather than apologizing you instead called me another baby name? Unbelievable...

                The facts from the WHO in my link as you will recall said that "3 BILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE LACK SANITATION FACILITIES".


                I stated that 3 billion people live in "informal housing." What's this 1 billion number you read about in the article? Are you proposing that "formal housing" doesn't have access to sanitation facilities? I think that's a very weird/difficult argument to make. But feel free to go ahead with it. I'm listening. And if that's your argument, then how does it make me a "liar" for having apparently such a more reasonable side to my position? Remember, you asked for a link, I provided it, and you provided nothing (no links, no facts) to support your argument.

                Are you just not able to read the articles I waste my time providing you with? You don't have the time in between calling me baby names?

                Why don't you just READ and then these conversations would be unnecessary.

                " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

                King Lear

                by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:36:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I said nothing about 1 billion people (none)
                  I called you coward because you continue(d) to evade answering my questions about your experience in the third world.  Instead you engaged in games.  Like now.

                  I'm not interested in rehashing this, thank you.

                  "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

                  by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:47:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Games? (none)
                    I'm just waiting for you to apologize for calling me  an "ignorant little liar" and an "occidental tourist" simply because you claim you didn't know the meaning of "occidental." Instead of doing this you attack me personally and try to paint me as a white "crusading" American who likes to go on tourist trips. All assumptions not based on anything we discussed... so completely surreal is your racist attitude.

                    Is it because you "claim" to be Pakistani that you feel you can throw around that kind of hate-speech? Does your name on a blog give you the right to denegrate the work other people have done? Who are you to ask me a goddam thing? You can apologize for being an infant and not knowing what you're talking about... that's what you can do.

                    You have no idea how long I've spent working for those without housing, building homes for the poor. I've done it all my life. Or maybe I haven't. My parents did it. Or maybe not. So go to hell. I'm sick of this. All my fucking life... and it doesn't have a goddam thing to do with the argument at hand you freaking racist. Do you even know what color I am? Take a guess... I dare you.

                    "Occidental Tourist".... jesus christ. I couldn't believe I saw you write that. Sure... you say you forgot what "occidental" meant... but in the context of our argument after the assumptions you were implying about me being a young American who went on "tourist trips," your "occidental tourist" comment sings loud and clear to me Baba. I know EXACTLY what you were saying.  

                    And it's sad. Understandable believe me... I UNDERSTAND it and would even forgive it... in the face of the racism Pakistani people have to face everyday in America, but it's still sad here at KOS.

                    " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

                    King Lear

                    by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:08:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And yet (none)
                      you continue to evade the questions.


                      "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

                      by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:17:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your arrogance (none)
                        is unbelievable. But I enjoy taking you apart ad nauseum. Racists are easy to get motivated to write about.

                        Have you forgotten already? Is it the drugs? The 911 tower discussions? You are the one who has been evading my demands that you apologize before we continue with the discussion. You must address your racist comments. I've told you that you won't get any answers to anything until you do. And certainly not about my personal life. Are you crazy?

                        Oh wait... the 911 towers... I almost forgot... yes, I guess you are crazy. Or drunk. Or on drugs. You're all screwed up on crack, yes. Well, enjoy. It'll kill ya'...

                        I can't believe you aren't going to apologize for what you've said. Aren't you ashamed? Are all the people you know as racist as to go around calling people they don't know, haven't seen, and have never met "occidental tourists?" Is that common where you live? Or would your family be ashamed as well? What if your mother knew? Would she be proud of that comment? I wonder? Your refusal apologize and to continue to demand things of me after I asked for an apology is ludicrous.

                        So goodbye. I'll check back for an apology to all things listed. Otherwise, there's no more point in this. You refuse to apologize for your racist remarks and I refuse to answer any questions about my personal life until you do. That's just simple courtesy. Weird that you don't understand that. Again, it must be the drugs. Or maybe everyone just goes around being a racist where you live and you don't feel like you need to apologize for it... that must suck. So goodnight. I'll check back for your apology for calling me an "occidental tourist" and an "ignorant little liar." What a sad little man you must be.

                        " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

                        King Lear

                        by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:50:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  We can exhort to (none)
        the community today... but what about 3 weeks from now? What about all the newbees then?

        You guys are going to get quick tired of exhortation. I think it might be a design problem... I could be wrong. It's up to you guys... I just had the above idea and it made sense to me.

        " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:21:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair point (none)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:25:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is (none)
            the latest "WTC7 was deliberately destroyed to cover up CIA files" poster.

            "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

            by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:09:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey... (none)
              it's Baba. Good to see you this evening. I hope all's well. How's the missus? 300 billion baby... 300 billion. But I got other plans tonight...


              " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

              King Lear

              by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:13:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Full disclosure (none)
              I made a mistake, and confused two different conversations I had last night.  Norwell did not post about the WTC7 building collapse.  I apologized elsewhere, but want to make it clear he was not the conpiracy theorist.


              "Whatever they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante." -- Charles Pierce

              by baba durag on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:00:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  All you guys would have to do... (none)
        really is put a final filter layer over the Recommends. One of y'all gives it a "pass." I don't know if someone is always monitoring the site, but I'm guessing so...? Maybe not...?

        Maybe the idea is antithetical to what you're trying to do.

        " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:25:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that goes a little too far. (none)
          There's enough resentment against the frontpagers already. People would freak about central control of recommendations, and I would probably be one of them.
          •  Yeah... (none)
            could be right. I don't really know who's part of the old-school here other than Armando, maybe 10-20 other names I'd recognize more'n others. And not really sure how blogger ethics runs... probably yeah, it doesn't fly...

            Well... maybe someone else has some better idea... I guess I'll keep reading.

            " admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

            King Lear

            by Norwell on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:05:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  yuck (none)
          the professional "hand on crank" crowd would kill this place in 3 days.
  •  It's the same reason Republicans watch Fox. (4.00)
    You watch/read/write what you want to see/hear/say.

    Impeachment talk makes me giddy. I know it can't happen now, maybe in 2006, though probably never. And that doesn't stop peers from wanting the same thing too.

    However, from protesting on a corner for the past two thursdays. I got quite a few more Cheers and Jeers from my "Impeach Bush" sign the second week than my "Fair/Balance not synonymous with Truth/Accuracy" sign did in the first week.

    It's out there, the folks driving by either loved me or hated me. Tension is palpable.

    "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" -George Washington

    by House on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:14:51 PM PDT

  •  Trust me... (none)
    ...the Left is every bit as capable of generating big-time goofballs as the right.  However, our goofballs tend not to be obsessed with sex.  And if you ask 'em nicely, they'll share their pot with you...

    "Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan

    by Roddy McCorley on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:16:13 PM PDT

  •  On some level, the impeachment diaries (4.00)
    are good sign: The Democratic rank-and-file are beginning to hope again. We're finally winning some of these fights, and morale is up.

    As annoying as it is to hear people call for Articles of Impeachment in a Republican-controlled House, I prefer it to depression and variations upon "I'm moving to Canada."

  •  The problem's inherent to the format (4.00)
    The problem as I see it rests largely in the fact that the open diary format allows anyone with a half-baked opinion to post diaries without much in the way of a pre-publication filter.  Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; it is, in fact, one of the most appealing facets of this site.  But, it simultaneously engenders from some the type of diary that is written with more of an eye to getting noticed, read, and recommended as opposed to producing genuinely thorough scholarship.

    From the National Enquirer-esque headlines to the overwrought content, some diarists appear to write in an over-the-top fashion so that their 1500-word treatise--which may actually have more than a kernel of a solid premise--will not fade from view with 4 recommendations and 11 comments.  Another reason just may lie in the fact that there exists just so many ways that a legitimate issue can be presented for public consumption without the need to venture over into some rather shaky territory. That is, once we've collected 217 diaries on the Downing Street Minutes, the 218th almost must be presented in the form that it will cause Bush's ride to the Hague.

    Mind you, I'm not necessarily complaining; just pointing out the "bad" that must be taken with the good that this open format presents.  (That said, DH's call for more responsibility is certainly needed and refreshing.)  I guess the moral is: it's up to each of us to be our best editors and publishers.

    The sword of Damocles does its work not by its fall, but because it hangs.

    by GOTV on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:18:35 PM PDT

  •  Okay... (4.00)
    ....I'm with you, but Diebold is really a problem.

    When Jesus returns, religious wingnuttia will have him committed to an asylum. - anonymous

    by Doug in SF on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:19:18 PM PDT

  •  Breaking (none)
    UK Intel Officer reveals Armando is a GOP spy. Reports directly to Karl Rove.

    It seems you've been living two lives, Mr. Anderson...

    "I am not a crook" - The Honourable Richard M. Nixon

    by tricky dick on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:21:04 PM PDT

  •  I was this close (none)
    to posting an insulting comment on the "dkos is going to bring down the bush administration" diary to the effect that what the person was saying was a load of horseshit, but my better (worse?) angels got the best of me.  I figured I'd just leave it alone and let people have their fun, if that's what they really think.

    Anyway I hope you're wrong, but if you're not it is bad news in terms of confirming some of my fears about the groupthink that goes on here sometimes.

    pay no mind to us, we're just a minor threat

    by arb on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:22:37 PM PDT

  •  Uggh (4.00)
    The problem with what you're suggesting here, is that it discourages people from thinking outside the box and debating the merits of ideas not yet widely accepted. The only reality that helps to preserve is the all-too-familiar reality that "the powers that be," as it were, are capable of suppressing dissenting views (along with inspired judgment) through peer pressure, self-censorship and ratings abuse.


    Who cares if some people go a little too far sometimes? It's not like other members of the community here won't challenge them. If the factual content of a diary stinks, we're all free to take our best shots at it. If any of us find the theories expressed in some diaries tedious, we've all got the option to ignore them.

    I can't for the life of me understand why some people can't just use their own personal discretion instead of demanding community rules for dealing with what amounts to hiccups in an otherwise pretty decent gig.

    Dissent is the lifeblood of discourse. This community, indeed, every democratic polity absolutely requires a healthy respect for the insight of skeptics, devil's advocates, geniuses and fools. Otherwise, discourse rots - from the inside out.

    •  Well (none)
      Here's the thing - speculation is fine, label it as such.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:24:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not to be a pedantic (none)
        pain in the rear end, but it's safe to assume that some speculation is at least marginally involved in almost every panoramic account of events, unless people are writing from firsthand knowledge of every aspect of it.

        So, it kind of seems like what you're really asking for is a gesture of submissiveness to a community that may or may not agree with what's being written by a member of this community that doesn't have trusted user status up the wazoo.

        •  Gotta agree with Kimberley here. (4.00)
          Almost completely.  Testing out ideas in this community is an essential feature of dKos.

          One thing, however, that could make posts more respectable and raise the level of discourse is to establish a requirement for some linking/footnoting in diaries.

          I am not a competent technical person to determine the feasibility of this, but you might even be able to give a stat beside each diary which would figure in the number of footnotes/links per 1000 words or something like that.  

          This stat then could be used to "lower" the Recommend value of a post.  

          Obviously, this would serve to discourage more creative writing like that DarkSyde diary in which a wingnut was comeupped by a reality-based Florida DoD jockey.  Such a "filter" (pun intended) would probably make the site less interesting, less creative, and less of a cauldron of new ideas for our allies.

          I can tell you that several posts I read first here at dKos (and not just the DSM) have been picked up by the MSM and investigated, if not downright lifted.

          So if the footnote/links-filter approach is not feasible, you might try establishing a new standard which asks folks to document with footnotes/links those diaries that make factual assertions.  Generally, I think it would serve to improve the site, improve every Kossack's writing and thinking, and also make the dKos resource even better.  (The American Progress website and daily email, as well as umpteen diaries and comments by the veterans here, would serve as good templates for proper dKos "form".)

          Many Kossacks already do this.  As mentioned, the best Kossacks even do it in their comments as a matter of practice.

    •  Nature's way (4.00)
        I agree with your sentiment. In nature, there are many more failures than successes, sometimes by a vast proportion.

      I suspect the same is true with diaries.

      I would bet many of the diarists don't have professional writing experience, which means they will have to learn the hard way - and that takes a certain bravery which must be respected. Being able to express yourself fluidly and precisely is a tough skill for most people to master. And that still doesn't mean you have a noteworthy thing to say no matter how well expressed it is.

      What I saw this weekend in the brief time I was at a reception at DemocracyFest in Austin was that so many people with little experience so wanted to contribute. They were thinking and expressing, sharing and networking. These weren't the big thinkers or the party leaders, but just common folks so concerned about this country that they wanted to take part. That is something which not only should be encouraged, but cherished. This is a critical time for growth and expression.

  •  DHinMI missing a key point (4.00)
    "they need to wade into the threads and ask the questions that are ignored or obfuscated in the diary.  They need to look at new diaries and recommend diaries that are worthy, and pose the hard and revealing questions about those that aren't."

    This is the only thing that you said that I agree with - that we need to maintain a spirit of critical thinking on this site.

    However, when you tell people that they shouldn't post things it makes you appear paranoid and belays a lot of fear if you ask me.  Blogs are kind of like Howard Dean (and this isn't really that much of a metaphor) - things are said on them that drive you absolutely crazy and you hope that the right doesn't take it and turn it into something that will hurt our cause.  But that hasn't stopped them from being perhaps the most powerful vehicle for democracy our country has seen in a long time.

    We really need to keep our eye on the ball here - especially now that we have gained such a powerful foothold in reinventing American Politics.  It's ok that some of us are gullible, or excessively idealistic, or prone to believe conspiracy theories - we're here, and we're shaping issues, and we're doing something about them (e.g. the bats, the candidates, the calls to action).  That, above all else, should be the litmus test of whether or not we've been "infiltrated."

  •  Maybe the Wing Nuts are Crazy Like (none)
    Foxes?  bear w/me --

    You know how we MOCK the right wing blogs b/c the majority don't allow comments? right?  Well....maybe that's The Plan.

    Scenario:  The wing nuts check their blogs, get their talking points, and then go Out Into The World -- talking w/neighbors, co-workers, etc., while we're sitting here commenting our brains out over every fucking piece of minutae that comes down the pike, repeatedly!!

    (a theory in progress)

    ...Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things....

    by PhillyGal on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:25:05 PM PDT

  •  Injecting a little history. . . (4.00)
    When the government infiltrated progressive groups in the 60s and 70s they often used "more left than thou" provocateurs who pushed for violence and extreme behavior and beliefs. I think we have a lot more to be concerned about from the fringes than we do from the people who say "maybe the Republicans have a point here."  But it's my observation that the latter behavior is more likely to get somebody called a troll than the fringey, crazy stuff will. I'm with you DHinMI.

    "The more they spoke of honor, the more I checked my wallet."

    by bankbane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:27:23 PM PDT

  •  Not to worry (4.00)
    Absolutely nobody recommended my diary about the possibility of Nancy Pelosi assuming the presidency in the aftermath of a joint impeachment/resignation process. Cooler heads seemed to have prevailed in that instance.

    But there was a very intriguing discussion about Brittney Spears' Oscar potential. And a few comments from someone named Maryscott O'Connor who I am almost sure is not a Republican operative. Almost sure.

    In fact, now that I reflect a little, it's an outrage to suggest Rovian infiltration at this site. Where is the documentary evidence? Show me one link! Why don't you post this diary on FreeRepublic where it belongs?! This diary are a disgrace to every tin-foil conspiracist with delusions of grandeur out there. Unless you're right. In which case, "Recommended."

  •  In Defense of Fantasy (4.00)
    I've fantasized about Bush impeachment plenty. I've even considered posting a diary on it. The reason I do is that I'm curious how it would even work. Obviously the first step would be electing a Democratic congress, no mean feat there. Then we'd have to have a strong enough case for the media and the public to take it seriously and not see it as sour grapes for Clinton and the 2000 election. Then if we got a vote out of the Judiciary committee, and if we somehow got 2/3 of the House to vote for it, we'd have to find 67 Senators. If we managed all of that, we'd have to do it all over again for Cheney, and deal with confirmation hearing for his Vice President. All of this in 2007, just as the presidential primaries are heating up.

    Just looking at the number of steps involved and the obstacles in the way of impeachment is my way of reaffirming my attachment to reality. If you want to advance your thinking, you have to be willing to at least contemplate the off the wall shit, if only to say exactly how it's off the wall.

    Another point, something that sounds off the wall now might not in a year or two. If someone had told me in January of 2003 that Howard Dean would be considered the inevitable front-runner for the Democratic nomination, I would have thought they were crazy, and I might have written a diary about it. Similarly, if someone had told me in November of 2003 that John Kerry would be the nominee I would be similarly skeptical. If someone has said that George Bush would come out in favor of civil unions for gay couples a week before the 2004 election, I would have laughed in their face. But all of these things happened.

    The key is to balance open-mindedness with skepticism. Strange things do happen all the time. But they tend not to. Both of the previous statements are part of reality and if you want to be "reality-based" you'll have to deal with crazy theories sometimes, because sometimes they're right.

    •  Great Comment (4.00)
      It's about balancing skepticism with open-mindedness.  Speculation, labeled as such, is fine; I do it all the time.  But examining the speculations, and knowing the context and obsticles, and not making crazy predictions are important.  

      Good way to describe it, balancing open-mindedness with skepticism.  

      •  Balancing open-mindedness with skepticism (none)
        is called "the scientific method".
        •  Nope (none)
          There's a lot more to the scientific method than that, most of all the importance of experiments that can be replicated, thus inserting the notion of peer review into what is essentially a social process of testing hypothesis that can gain contingent acceptance unless and until they are proven false.  
          •  Yep! (none)
            Yep! You're absolutely right! Sort of!

            And, actually, you're mostly wrong too.

            Observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> observation -> adjust hypothesis -> experiment ->
            (repeat until golden brown).

            THAT"s the scientific method.

            Skepticism and open-mindedness, or whatever the original thing was, are just conducive outlooks.

            And, actually, peer review isn't part of science per se - a castaway can perform pefectly nice scientific experiments all alone to find out which coconuts are best for messages-in-a-coconut, without peer review, and it's still science. I bet lots (if not most) of "science" is done without any review.

            And replication is largely for the benefit and purpose of peer review. It's a subset of experiment. So I wouldn't have said "most of all" about the importance of replication.

            And "science" is not a social process. It's not about acceptance. Grant proposals and tenure and primacy are about acceptance.

            So you'rte kinda mostly wrong, even though you're absolutely right! Gotta love it!

            Peer review is a sort of social process, and the spread of scientific findings to the scientific community is a sort of social process. And so the Advancement of Mankind's Understanding depends on peer review.

            And that ain't hay.

            But not all science is done to advance Mankind's Understanding. A lot of science is done to make labels stick on jars better, and find the best place in the house for cell-phone reception, and mundane things that never quite make it to the Lancet. And that's science!

            Most people equate science with big buzzing cyclotrons, test tubes, and lab coats - and publication, And that's (mostly!) science too.

            But you're still basically right, of course.

            And I'm still basically pretty anal retentive, for such an anal expulsive.

            Plus, I was just trying to be funny in the first place.

            Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes.
            -Walt Whitman

  •  Building Up False Expectations (4.00)
    Usually a defender of the non-status-quo here, BUT the dkos-impeachment diary really caught my eye as wishful thinking and very non reality based.

    In the echo chamber that was dkos in October 2004, this naive reader gullibl;y thought that Kerry was going to crush Bush. I am guilty of reading every analysis of every poll where most of the post-ers of pollsters concluded that Kerry couldn't lose.

    This guy (me) who went to another state to GOTV on the day of the election was completely crushed and unable to participate here for a long time.

    Now I simply don't believe everything I read.  

    Stop using Jesus as an excuse for being a narrow-minded bigoted asshole.

    by joeesha on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:33:10 PM PDT

  •  I want to be able to unrecommend (none)
    diaries.  I  can't tell you how many times I've thrown up my hands in disgust at some (only some) of the articles that show up in the recommended list.  

    I'd really like to be able to vote against the most egregious diaries--not just be able to cancel a vote that I wouldn't place anyway.


    "Don't want to be an American idiot..." -- Green Day

    by Black Maned Pensator on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:37:40 PM PDT

  •  Damn you C&J! (4.00)
    I figured out how they did it.  

    They posted pootie pics in C&J to gain TU status. Kos knew this might happen so he increased TU standards.   Because of the changes, C&J became the only place to get enough mojo to maintain TU status which was now full of republican tricksters that would only share the mojo amongst themselves.  Thus the reality based community no longer had TU status and couldn't review hidden comments anymore.  With that, their plan was complete - they could hide any comments from the reality based community and continue to disseminate their claims.  

    A dirty trick if I ever saw one.

    "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by sgilman on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:38:54 PM PDT

    •  Yikes! Busted........... (4.00)
      (Plan B:  grabbing Pootie and heading to the Mother Ship for further instructions)

      ...Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things....

      by PhillyGal on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:46:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait for me! (4.00)
        I'm right behind you...ummm...where did Bill park the Mother Ship again this week?

        On a slightly more serious note, I would suggest that people should be able to post anything they want; it's up to the community to separate the wheat from the chaffe.  Using a bit of logic and common sense before hitting 'recommend' would go a long way to solving the problem.

  •  Rumsfeld put it best... (none)
    people need to watch what they do and watch what they say.
    •  So much for practicing what you preach n/t (4.00)

      "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by sgilman on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:41:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (none)
        not sure what you mean.
        •  He Was Referring to Rumsfeld... (4.00)
          ...not practicing what he preached.
          •  thanks (4.00)
            I am new around here, to this whole discussion thing actually, and am in constant fear of being yelled out or called some name and that I won't even know what it means. I have tried to educate myself on the subject and have been reading this page too much for the past few months.

            It takes a ton of courage for some people to participate in this stuff. I am much more comfortable in front of a live crowd. I guess that's why I hate to hear people talk about what can and can't be said. That's what I get in my daily life. I am here to be with people who can express themselves intelligently and freely and understand the value and theory behind free speech.  

            Start the yelling - I'm ready.

            •  WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?! (4.00)
              Get some cajones, you gutless wonder, or go back to Freeperville where you can peacefully annoy us from the comfort of YER MOM'S TRAILER VAN!!

              Was that anything like what you had in mind?

              Besides, conducting discourse in a crowd with other live people is distracting. It leads to things like offers to have dinner, and later sex. Less time to scour the blogs that way. This type of discourse is much preferable I'm sure you'll find.

              •  that is exactly what I expected! (none)
                that is exactly what I expected!

                ps. my mom's busy shackin with her boyfriend in the trailer van so I am stuck here. That's why I have time to read today's whitehouse press briefing. Thought this was interesting: Sounds like Scott got tricked into saying bin Laden is in Pakistan.

                "Q Scott, just for the record, following up on the bin Laden question, is the Bush doctrine -- you're either for us or against us -- still in effect?

                MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made those views very clear.

                Q Can we conclude then that we are -- the U.S. is receiving 100 percent cooperation from the country or countries that Porter Goss believes bin Laden is hiding in?

                MR. McCLELLAN: We are receiving good cooperation from the government of Pakistan. They are a partner in the global war on terrorism, and they have been working with us to go after al Qaeda and Taliban remnants. They understand the importance of staying on the offensive and going after the terrorists to disrupt plots and prevent them from carrying out the attacks.

                President Musharraf recognizes the importance of going after those terrorists and bringing them to justice before they can do harm. So we appreciate the work that the government of Pakistan is doing to partner with us in the global war on terrorism.

                Go ahead, Paula."

                What do you think?

            •  Relative newbie too (none)
              I have no idea how I found dkos, but I did and can't stop coming back. I've never blogged before, so this has been very intimidating and educational.  

              The only time I have ever recommended a diary was yesterday and it was Hunter's incredible writing that made me do it.  

              I think I may need to work on my timing.  ; )

    •  How soon they forget (none)

      That was Ari.

      The sword of Damocles does its work not by its fall, but because it hangs.

      by GOTV on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:43:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are you MAD? (4.00)
    Skimming the comments of this topic, most of which vastly missed the point, I can say that it isn't a result of Republican infiltration.  Its practically physics.

    On one hand, us bloggers have doing what we do naturally.  We spill volumes into text boxes, following conspiracy, concepts, and conversation.  It is as second nature to us as breathing.

    On the other hand, you are asking us to leave the internet behind for a while, and meet people face to face.  This, with the objective of having a dubious impact upon our local hum drum politics.

    Is it no wonder why so many, myself included, avoid the latter for the former?  

    Maybe we need a daily comment topic on the front page called, "Are you MAD?"  In this case, MAD would be standing for Making A Difference.  

    No, right now I wouldn't have anything to reply to on such a topic.  I'm just spewing text in a text box.  If I was being realistic I might say this is just another idea with no energy behind it.

  •  In a Sense . . . (none)
    What it comes down to is the extent to which users/members of dKos want the site to be taken seriously by the political community and, yes, establishment media.  If the signal-to-noise ratio begins to drop below a certain point, with a high percentage of diaries based on nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy, we'll be ignored by exactly the groups we most need to reach.  And let's not kid ourselves:  we do need to reach them.

    Ideally, I think we would want to get to where more and more elected representatives and candidates come here to engage with us directly, and where the mainstream media "picks up" stories that were reported here first.  These are self-reinforcing virtuous cycles, as ever-greater numbers of non-Kossacks begin to view the site as a generally reliable source of information and/or analysis.

    An alternative, of course, would be devolution into a "can you top this?" atmosphere where the site is taken about as seriously as FreeRepublic or Little Green Footballs.  C'mon people -- we're so much better than that.  I'm almost ashamed to make the comparison, but there are times when we seem only slightly more connected to reality than they are.

    I'm not saying that we should refrain from all ranting -- we all need our Howard Beale moments from time to time.  But we need to stay reasonably well-focused on our common goals:  winning back Congress, winning back statehouses and legislatures, and winning back the White House.  Everything we do here should help move those closer to reality.

  •  Wait! (4.00)
    Let me be sure I have this straight:

    On dKos
    Snark:  OK
    Satire:  check
    Rant:  bring it on!
    Breaking news:  fine
    C&J/WYFP:  definitely!
    Political information & discussion:  Yeah, we do that too.

    "Unrealistic" political fantasy:  unacceptable.

    •  My personal favorite is... (none)
      ...Markos and all the front pagers in this "Reality Based" community think there is no convincing evidence of fraud in the 2004 national election.

      ...Wow...just wow!

      "Anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist these days isn't paying attention." -Paul Revere

      by Blue Shark on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:27:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't going to wade in, but - (none)
        I wasn't going to wade in about conspiracy theories, since the topic is apparently "let's us big kids beat up the little kids cuz u r dumm" - and since my complexion looks washed out when I wear tin foil - but -

        - I agree, you'd have to be living in a fantasy world not to harbor some fantastic conspiracy theories about election results, 9/11, etc.. The Official Story (about several things) is such obvious whitewash!

        Anyway, crazy theory-wise, I'd rather hear them out first, and laugh afterwards maybe, than BAN them!

        What, are we required to toe the ideological line if we want to comment?

        Besides, I find the "dKos orthodoxy" crowd to be a little limited, if you don't mind my saying. (Oh no! Now someone's going to give me a bad rating! How will I ever get to be important around here?)

        Y'know, if I were Karl Rove, I'd maybe want to infiltrate dKOS to keep the conspiracy theories out of sight. Maybe DHinMI is Karl Rove!


  •  When I First Saw the Post... (none)
    About Dkos bringing down BuschCo, the first thought that went through my head was, "Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back."

    The battle is not even close to being over. It will never be over.

    •  Especially with Kossacks inability to get into the (none)
      streets. I was at the Lafayette Park rally w/ about 500 others last Thurs. evening.

      DC Kossacks must at least number in the tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand. Yet, did the majority of them show?

      NO, not even close.

      So, instead of 5000 people escorting Conyers to the White Folks House chanting "Impeach Bush,"
      his escort was a paltry 50 souls. We did our best, but were nearly outnumbered by camera crews.

      We are closer to the Rapture than to getting traitorBush impeached. Hit the streets people.

      'Tis better to Diebold...than to slink away quietly!

      by traitorbushchimp on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:16:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Building momentum!?!?!? (4.00)
    I posted on the Dkos is going to bring down Bush Diary.  My motivation: I want to be a part of fighting back.  I want to get in a few paper cuts of my own to add to that thousand that might take this president down...

    ...or a least give some voice to another point of view when this chapter of history is written.

    Of course I want to do it with facts.

    A vote for Bush is a vote for torture

    by Gator on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:47:29 PM PDT

  •  What makes you think we're only spinning... (4.00)
    our wheels and not getting any real traction on the ground?

    Sorry, neighbor, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.  MANY of us are doing something concrete, on the ground, to get new progressive members of Congress in 2006, as well as working on rejuvenating the party and addressing the issue of voting irregularities.  I don't think I can squeak out one more membership to one more progressive organization, couldn't do more than I already am (3+ hours a week in meetings alone for the cause, let alone writing and organizing...).

    AND we don't all of us subscribe to the concept of a  a deeply conservative and corrupt Republican House or a deeply conservative and corrupt Republican President.  The truth is there's several factions -- some Libertarian Republicans (like Ron Paul (R-TX)), some moderates, and a number of isolationists along with a cluster of fundie Republicans.  Any of these groups will break rank and swing our way depending on the situation and the legislation, as the threat to filibuster proved.  They've been held together by a couple of extremely corrupt individuals who've blackmailed them into submission and utter compliance; if you don't think they harbor hostility about that somewhere deep, think again.  If you don't think the moderate Repubs in purple-to-blueish states haven't been pommeled about it, think again.  They are simply waiting the right shift in the winds, waiting for the collar to slacken before they break ranks.  

    Nick Smith (R-MI), for example -- he squealed because his conscience got to him, clammed up because they had something on him.  Once that something is gone for good...?

    What we need to do is indulge the flights of fancy -- but GUIDE THEM to constructive action, not beat the crap out of them.  Would I love to see Bush and Cheney impeached?  Hell yeah.  Would I love to see the perp who leaked on Plame frog-walked?  Hell yeah.  And more -- but what should I do to ensure that?

    Get a f*cking majority in Congress.  Daydream a bit, focus on what it takes to make it reality, strategize, organize, gently steer the crowd towards the goal and then hit the bricks.  That's the answer, not bitching about people who dream -- not bitching about people with VISION.  There's a pretty fine line between dream and vision, after all.

    What if we missed our chance to take down this administration and regain our world for the lack of vision?

    Jeepers, what if MLK had simply tossed his "I have a dream" speech because somebody told him he was a gullible crackpot dreamer or an operative for the wrong side, that he ought to give it up because there were too many deeply conservative and corrupt Republicans out to get him?

    Gad, freepers are probably already reveling in the  fact we eat our young here even when we're angry about eating our young...they don't need to send operatives, we do a pretty good job all on our own.

  •  I had seen (none)
    the article stating 9,000 US soldiers had died in Iraq - rather than over 1700 - and I had wondered if it was a Rove concoction to defocus us from our goals.  I was glad to see the diary explaining the article was bogus.
    But there will be more of them!
  •  Visualization... and faking (none)
    fantasy is a great way to practice visualization. We all need to be forming a clear picture of the Bush administration failing, and what it will take to get the country back. While I agree that getting involved locally is going to make the biggest difference, there should still be some room for creative thinking, whether or not it comes to anything.

    About the "Fake" evidence thread above. As a musician, there is a very good analogy to the way they just got the ball rolling without really coming clean. It's called faking it. Phony stories, and faking chords, data, whatever almost always means amplifying the things that support the story, and ignoring the things that interrupt (like for example, leading chords in music or data analysists who can't verify evidence).

    The problem I have with this "Show me the link or fuck off" mentality is that the world just isn't black and white. We all know that the evidence for the war didn't pass the smell test, and the evidence for the next one won't either.

    If "Fake" is too stong a word for cherry-picking intelligence in order to get people killed, and if we have to wait until there is rock solid-proof before saying anything at all, then we're going to be editing ourselves into silence.  

    •  amen (none)
      fantasy is a great way to practice visualization. We all need to be forming a clear picture of the Bush administration failing, and what it will take to get the country back. While I agree that getting involved locally is going to make the biggest difference, there should still be some room for creative thinking, whether or not it comes to anything.

      before you can make it real, you have to dream it.

      Is there a reliable way to separate the Rovian trolls from the true blue dreamers?

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:25:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this dairy! (none)
      This has been bugging me so much that have gotten really turned off to the site.

      I get sick and tired of posts  being hijacked by folks who insist that  pies and boobs are destroying the world, or the World Trade Center was dynamited, or that unless you think exactly like they do you are not "liberal" enough and a part of a  corporate plot to end the world.

      It does show that to hijack a topic, all you have to do is make some outrageous claim......don't look at boobs.... boobs are  bad, no they aren' are victimizing women......    I mean you can see clearly the strategy of the Republicans  when they take an issue and use it to inflame passions on some nutty point that infuriates people and bingo...........everyone gets sidetracked! and realitiy disappears.

    So who is this guy, Mitofsky.

      Again thanks for posting this.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:58:41 PM PDT

  •  Aaaaahhhhh...... (none)
    discussion is good.....and healthy!  Wow, lots of healthy (and funny) discussion going on here this evening.  

    Isn't this what America is all about?


  •  This needed to be said.. thank you (none)
    There are crazies on the left just as there are batshit crazy, loopy wingnuts on the right.  Conspiracy theories don't have a place in the reality-based community.

    While the crazy lefties are rather harmless, the extreme nature on the right has hurt my country and cost lives.  Think of an alternate universe with a leftist administration with a complicit press spewing liberal propaganda ad nauseum.  Do you think that in such a world you would have preemptive war resulting in an endless quagmire with tens of thousands dead???  No!  I know this.. you all know this.  There is no equivalency...

    But there is a rhetorical battle that is going on... and if you want to be marginalized, the easiest way to do that is to be perceived as crazy conspiracy theorists.  They have no place here.

    "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    by wintersnowman on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:03:05 PM PDT

  •  yea (none)
    reality-based questions
    the answer? msut be a republican conspiracy!
  •  well i love a conspiracy theory (none)
    wrapped in a conspiracy theory
    wrapped in a conspiracy theory
    like a baboushka doll. reminds me of dennis hopper & jack nicholson having their stoned chat in easy rider.

    i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

    by rasbobbo on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:06:02 PM PDT

  •  Bobby "Big shot" Horry (none)
    It's all his fault.

    That's what this diary is REALLY saying.


  •  call me crazy (TBM, you're crazy!) (4.00)
    but I actually believe dKos is going to take down George W. Bush.

    Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually, and where it counts: in the public mind and in the history books.

    I don't believe it is going to happen today, or in the 109th Congress, and I know it's not likely we will win majorities in the 110th Congress (although it's not impossible...).

    But I do believe that someday GDub will be completely discredited.  That all the lies being told so glibly now will be revealed as lies.  That we will look back on this period with the same disdain that reasonable people have for McCarthyism.  (has anyone seen the frumious Coultersnatch's defense of McCarthy?  It's insanity.)

    When serious historians begin to look back on this period (and I hope this happens in short order) they will talk about the parallel independent journalism that developed on the blogs and they will mention dKos.  We may only end up as a footnote, but we will be a finger on the hand that slapped down the radical right.

    Anyone who thinks impeachment is coming soon is smoking the funny stuff, unless by some miracle we win the house in 2006.  That would take a concerted "Contract For America" effort that I haven't seen yet, but I don't put it out of the realm of the possible, especailly considering the plunging poll numbers and the growing discontent about the war.

    But the point of a second term is legacy, and we are tarnishing GDub's place in history beyond repair--or rather, he is tarnishing it, and we are chronicling his misdeeds using the best means available to us right now.

    Of course I believed that about Reagan too and 20 years later I'm still waiting for the hero worshiip to end, but I'd go mad if I thought they were going to get away with it twice.  (anyone seen the frumious Coultersnatch quote calling GDub a "modern-day Churchill"?  Does she really believe the stuff she says?)

    I'm sure there are infiltrators posting here.  When Rs ridicule us for failure to control our message this is what they mean--we hold the door open and practically welcome the enemy right into the heart of our strategy discussions, while they control their forums with an iron fist.  But it is much harder for them to pass for reality-based than it is for me to pose as one of them on Free Republic (which I do every now and then just for camouflage practice).  If there are Rovian trolls here, let them post.  We'll ignore some of them, outdebate the rest of them, and generally show that we see them for what they are.

    One point of agreement: an anti-recommend button, perhaps available only to TUs to prevent trolls from abusing that feature too, would probably be a good thing and I hope we see it in the redesign.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:11:12 PM PDT

  •  BREAKING! Bush to be spanked by mommy! (4.00)
    And he loves it!

    If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't science!

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:12:16 PM PDT

  •  is this reality? (none)
    just saw this and am wondering...

    Iraqi Lawmakers Call for Foreign Troops to Withdraw

    supposedly just came out today?

  •  Actually (4.00)
    I'm grateful for the diarist's monumental effort creating the WaPo list of advertisers.  This will be a long hard slog - impeaching a president for lying about a BJ is much easier than one who's killed thousands needlessly.
    During this uphill battle where some of us will be personally bashed at every turn - having the option of boycotting a jailer who dangles the key before us but refuses to open the door so justice can be done - may be a momentary sense of Power needed to continue the fight.
  •  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! (4.00)
    OMG, DHinMI, you are too funny. And all the others, too. Hysterically funny satire - among the best I've ever seen.

    For the intellectually-impaired (you know who you are), let me break it down: DHinMI and friends have just modeled the organizational model and philosophy of the neocons.

    Oh, and the best part, the part that almost had me coughing Evian all over my keyboard, was the part about dKos losing credibility! Oh god I can't stop laughing... It's so hysterical, when you think about it, the idea that any of us would actually give a shit what the wingnuts would think or say about dKos, when their own leadership is in the process of completely  DESTROYING THE CREDIBILITY OF OUR ENTIRE NATION

    The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - MLK Jr.

    by thecarriest on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:23:39 PM PDT

    •  Hm (4.00)
      Bold face and TYPING IN ALL CAPS doesn't magically make your comment coherent or constructive.
    •  Sound Reasoning There... (none)
      ...that the credibility issue was about neocons.

      Psst, it wasn't about credibility with people who are our opponents, it was about maintaining credibility with progressives who exercise judgement and use their brains; in other words, the type of people I think most DKos folks are, and who I would hate to see leave the site because it rewards shoddy thinking and an inability to read for content...sorta like your comment right here.

      •  Sorry I hurt your feelings (none)
        I'm sorry to have misled you. The truth is, although many people are commenting about 'giving the right wing something to point at', I do know that you are much more concerned about people driving through "your" neighborhood thinking it must be your junker up on blocks.

        Don't look now but your worst fears are being realized even as we speak. In fact it's practically a standing joke in the left wing blogosphere. Word spreads like wildfire whenever a tinhat diary makes the recommended list, because it's clear that you and kos are in total agreement with these wackos. Why else wouldn't they be in a separate free speech zone by now?"


        The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - MLK Jr.

        by thecarriest on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:56:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  WMFP, Monday Edition (none)
    We at DKos talk too much and act too little.

    Get off your butt in front of the computer and get face-to-face with the fucks who are fucking with the Constitution.

    Pastor Ted Haggard of New Life Church: "They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property," he said. "That's what evangelical stands for."

    by towit on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:23:42 PM PDT

  •  Just Curious (none)
    What is the point of endlessly pointing out posts that you think are "fantasy"? Do you really think those posters care what you think, or will stop just because you say they should? If markos could not stop that whole pie fiasco, how do you think you will stop these "fantasy" posts?

    Unless you are Wyatt Sexton, you are wasting your time and diary space...

  •  Only One Thing Worse (4.00)
    Man, I hate those kooky diaries that raise all those crazy ideas that are beyond the limits of acceptable debate.

    I think the only thing that could possibly be worse, is a post that presents some meta-analysis of the state of this cool ass site, in general terms, and how we might save the site from the people patronizing it.

    Don't you just hate it when something like that ends up on the recommended list?

    You go DH.  When you get the standards fixed, so everybody can get on board with what is okay to talk about, please e-mail me with it.

    "Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joe Welch, taking down Sen. Joe McCarthy.

    by BostonJoe on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:38:21 PM PDT

  •  And the comittee chair asked are you now (none)
    or have you ever been a member of the Communists party. Their eyes gleamed with delight as they sat in their own manure.

    There are enough conspiracies on the left, right and apparently now in the middle to go around for everyone. Pick your reality.

  •  making assumptions (none)
    I did not read the diaries in question, so I cannot speak to their credibility, but your theory of dirty tricks is plausible.

    But I take exception to this-

    We have too many people believing in fantasy.  We have people more obsessed with thinking Mitkofsky is in cahoots with Rove than worrying about whether their local election clerk is competent and getting off their butts to do something to make sure their local elections are conducted fairly.

    Those of us who live in Virginia are registering voters, talking to our neighbors, and campaiging THIS YEAR. Persueing the voting machine story in no way precludes other activity. The word conspiracy exists because sometimes they happen.

    More particularly it is easier to believe that Mitkofsky has been frightened into silence than is actively collaborating with Rove.

  •  Jeeze! We're a nation of tabloid readers! (4.00)
    Anyone who's been to a supermarket has been drawn to those headlines, even those of us who are "above" that fray. I can't tell you how often I used to pick up some National Enquirer with the most outlandish headline wondering how they spun that headline out of a boring story. And it's more than just the Enquirer. People followed with a glossy "acceptable" version of inane gossip. [Remember that gossip is one step away from pure fiction.] Then GQ and Vanity Fair and now the GD NY Times does it on Page 2 of their Metro Section ... although it is "tasteful"  ... NOT!

    At dKos, the most annoying thing are the f*ing headlines. They make NY Post headlines look low-key and accurate by comparison. They state the  most outlandish accusation and then proceed to cover the mundane.  ;-)

    It's getting more difficult to find the wheat when the chaff is everywhere and is packaged like it was a glossy, desirable, finished product.

    I read my share of crap in the MSM and realize it really is the junk food of news: a quick sensationalistic fix that seems satisfying but leaves the reader with a desire for more junk. A good solid story, like the DSM, is like a good novel: it unwinds slowly, it takes a while for the implications to sink in and it raises more questions. It makes us curious enough to try to find out how things we don't know much about work.

    Those are the diaries I look for ... unfortunately these days I'm finding more meat in the handful of daily stories posted than in the recommended diary list.  

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:48:22 PM PDT

  •  I must agree- (none)
    I have said, in various ways, similar things... but it brings into question the purpose of blogs... which has been my recent curiosity (at least in terms of what I have written on these blogs)
  •  Practical Politics isn't here... (none)
    And there is a problem.  We have too many people believing in fantasy.  We have people more obsessed with thinking Mitkofsky is in cahoots with Rove than worrying about whether their local election clerk is competent and getting off their butts to do something to make sure their local elections are conducted fairly.  We have people more obsessed with boycotting the Washington Post because Dana Milbank was mean to John Conyers than getting off their butts to register voters for next year.  We have people obsessed with calling anyone who doesn't want a Stalinist purge of the Democratic party a "Vichy Democrat" than getting off their butts and attending their first meeting of their local, county or Congressional Democratic party organization.

    Practical Politics isn't in style here. (Much to my dismay.) And it needs to be the Prime Topic.......2006 is coming...  

  •  You're so right (none)
    That's why conspiracy nuts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and have been excluded form the public discourse.

    Richard Mellon Sciafe's wacky thoughts on Vince Foster never gained any traction or won the GOP any support.

    And the Republicans paid such a huge price for their whimsical impeachment of a presidnet with a 61% approval rating.

  •  How DHinMI should address the problem (none)
    A lesson from Stake your Claim from "Monty Python's Previous Record"

    Game Show Host (John Cleese):  Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?

    Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.

    Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the
    early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?

    Voles: 43.

    Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays
    performed over 300 years before you were born?

    Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.

    Host: Ah!

    Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm
    afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular
    point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!

    Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.

    Voles: My pleasure.

    Host: Next we have Mr Bill Wymiss who claims to have built the Taj

    Wymiss (Eric Idle): No.

    Host: I'm sorry?

    Wymiss: No. No.

    Host: I thought you cla...

    Wymiss: Well I did but I can see I won't last a minute with you.

    Host: Next...

    Wymiss: I was right!

    Host: ... we have Mrs Mittelschmerz of Dundee who cla... Mrs
    Mittelschmerz, what is your claim?

    Mittelschmerz (Graham Chapman in drag): That I can burrow through an elephant.

    Host: (Pause) Now you've changed your claim, haven't you. You know
    we haven't got an elephant.

    Mittelschmerz: (Insincerely) Oh, haven't you? Oh dear!

    Host: You're not fooling anybody, Mrs Mittelschmerz. In your letter
    you quite clearly claimed that ... er ... you could be thrown off
    the top of Beachy Head into the English Channel and then be

    Mittelschmerz: No, you can't read my writing.

    Host: It's typed.

    Mittelschmerz: It says 'elephant'.

    Host: Mrs Mittelschmerz, this is an entertainment show, and I'm not
    prepared to simply sit here bickering. Take her away, Heinz!

    Mittelschmerz: Here, no, leave me alone!

    (Sound of wind and sea).

    Mittelschmerz: Oooaaahh! (SPLOSH)

    Iraq: Arabic for Vietnam

    by Coldblue Steele on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:05:23 PM PDT

  •  Thank you DHinMI (none)
    It is so comforting to have the DKos thought police to guide my thinking. Reminds me of my formative years in Catholic school.

    That way I don't need to worry my silly head about nagging inconsistencies between what the Bushies  tell us and what I am seeing with my own eyes.

    And thank you for warning me about all those republican dirty tricksters that have infiltrated Dkos. I think it is best to just shut up and remain silent in case I say something they might twist and use to mischaracterize novel/original ideas as being loony.

    Heaven forbid. That would reflect very poorly upon Dkos, and make us an object of Repug ridicule (Oh dear) or something almost as bad.

    •  Care To Point Out Where I EVER... (none)
      ...told people to "shut up and remain silent?"  

      Of course I didn't, so your choice is to either admit there's no factual basis for what you wrote, or search in vain for the evidence that doesn't exist.

      While you're pondering your choices, you may want to read this.

  •  Karl Rove (Ar-rooooooo!) (none)
    Thank you Family Guy showing America the true Karl Rove.

    Ar-roooooo ow ow ow oooooooooo!!


  •  more, as i understand it... (none)
    dhinmi is running at about 50-100% of recent diaries being critical of Dems ...and gets recommended to the top of the list?  

    you gotta be kidding me...i write some extremely abrasive stuff, calling Bush a traitor at every possible turn, if only to counter Coulter, Her Cig-Breath Nastiness, and i think it important to provide some return fire to the repub dogs, and i have mr dhhinmi, the aspiring legislator (or current small-timer) out here judging others, who are just eager-beavers, wanting to have a place to talk shit...HELLO, WE ARE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT, 2/3 HATE BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY DEAL, AND INCREASINGLY HATE HIS OTHER POLICIES...THAT DIDN'T COME ABOUT FROM DEMS CRITICIZING DEMS...DEM ON DEM ATTACKS ARE BAD KARMA ...I could be wrong, but that is what I take from dminmi's highly recommonended recent diaries

    ...i have voted Democrat every election for at least 15 years straight, party-line votes (except for a maybe one election when I decided to vote for some libertarians in NC and dems everywhere libertarian won the race...later learned libertarians were infiltrated with repubs in reality.

    fact is, democrats are the real big tent party, and that includes and should include people who can't spell very well, those who can't write very well, and those who want a champion for them because they certainly won't get representation from fascist, Wahabist oligarchs, multinational traitor please dhinmi, face your rhetorical gun elsewhere...or count on being called an undercover repub.

    Jesus: Destroy this temple - Gospel of John

    by The Gnostic on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:22:28 PM PDT

  •  Less meta diaries, More action alehttp://www.darts (none)
    shameless plugging:

    2006 is not far away- we need to be doing, each of us, what we can to help.

  •  DHinMI says: (4.00)
    "We have too many people believing in fantasy."

    He says that there are posters "tainting sources of news and discussion like Daily Kos with the ridiculous, the fanciful, the destructive and the demonstrably false."

    That we "need to, at a minimum, stop recommending diaries that, as Markos and DCDemocrat discussed, call into question the place's reality-based credentials."

    ""If you care about being associated with the reality-based community, it's up to you.   "


    Yes, I do, and as a reality-based start...just so's we can all get some idea of what we are not supposed to post or into what sorts of threads we should wade in order to get this whole reality-based thing into some concrete perspective, I would like to hear from DHinMI, Kos, DCDemocrat and whomever else would like to contribute as to how exactly we are to define the terms "reality" and "fantasy"

    YOU know...just for starters.

    For example...if say a year before Watergate erupted (had there been an internet and a dKos then, of course) some peopLe had posted diaries suggesting that Nixon would be impeached because of a slipshod covert action of some sort, the interference of highly placed federal officials as anonymous witnesses for the media, and a secret taping system that had been installed in the Oval Office that was administered by Nixon's executive secretary Rosemary Woods (who quite likely edited the tape or at least let others do so to hide Nixon's culpability)...what would THAT have been called on our imaginary dKos?

    At the height of Clinton's popularity, who would have given credence to the idea that less that 2 years later he would be brought down...not by Whitewater, not by the Mena intrigue, not by the death of Vincent Foster...but by a fleeting affair he had with a slightly chubby but fully adult intern, a small lie that he expressed while defending himself by parsing the words "sexual relations" to mean "sexual intercourse", and an absolute media FEEDING frenzy that was stitrred up and in no small amount PAID for by the radical right?

    I can hear it now.




    "WHAT KIND OF USELESS, PARANOID ASSHOLE WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!??? OBVIOUSLY no one who would ever involve herself in the grassroots, "reality-based" political process. Throw the bitch OUT!!!"

    A further example...DHinMI writes "We have people more obsessed with boycotting the Washington Post because Dana Milbank was mean to John Conyers than getting off their butts to register voters for next year. "

    OK...I PASSIONATELY believe that a national newstrike/mediastrike would be the most powerful tool that we could POSSIBLY use to get the media out of their stonewalling stance. And I believe that there MUST those among the Rove braintrust who could quite conceivably be just as far-ranging in their thinking about this sort of thing as I am.

    DHinMI obviously disagrees.

    Am I then to immediately decry HIM as a fiendishly clever Rovian mole sent to defend Rove World from the only idea that could possibly bring it down?

    Heaven FORFEND that I would even THINK of such a thing!!!

    Why...that would be as ridiculous as thinking the the career J.Edgar Hoover bottom might inform on the President to the WASHINGTON POST.



    We MUST be careful here.


    If this is a "Democratic" website, then we MUST ALLOW FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT. Sure there will be fools....some of them will be apparently the most upright among us, like people who think that THER "reality" is THE reality. Others will be fringe area nutjobs, and I suppose THAT some who come from both ends AND the middle actually WILL be right wing moles.

    Let the community police ITSELF.

    If it is a worthwhile will do so quite nicely.

    And if not...onward and upward, because THIS "community" will have proven itself not worthy of its job.

    Beware the orthodoxy.

    Always and in everything.

    It's always too little and usually much too late as well.


    "Let the intelligent read and understand, and let the ignorant stay that way." From the earliest known piece of writing. A Mesopotamian shopping list. Nice.

    by Arthur Gilroy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:26:01 PM PDT

    •  Totally agree--and had to chuckle (none)
      reading many of the comments on this thread, because lots of smart people clucked "never, never, never" for the 3-4 years leading up to Nixon's resignation, and many more smart people refused to believe that Clinton would actually be impeached--until he was sitting there on TV, sweating bullets.  Times change, conditions may not be the same--but truth is often stranger than fiction.  Agree, though, we should always cite where possible.

      ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

      by bibble on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:44:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A multiple year investigation (none)
      into Watergate by multiple national news organizations in the presence of a Democratic House and Senate probably made the possible impeachment of a Republican president vastly more likely than the impeachment of a Republican president by a Republican Congress in the face of continuing silence by the media about the President's wrong doings.  The proposition that this Congress will impeach George Bush has the currency of the moon's being found to be made of blue cheese.  To compare the two historical events demonstrates a naivete in our community which is nothing short of disturbing.

      The sharing of joy and happiness can help us defeat the cold and darkness of this administration.--Carnacki

      by DCDemocrat on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:10:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    Is there any other kind?

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:26:40 PM PDT

  •  BREAKING!!! Chimpy's art fetches 14000 pounds! (none)
    Whoops that's Chimp's art not Chimpy's art :)

    The Guardian

  •  The Vowels (none)
    (a) No more slippery slopism. You can argue that buying the wrong flavor ice cream will lead inexorably to nuclear holocaust with slippery slopism.

    (e) Some people think it's fine to speculate wildly as long as you label it as such. I don't think so. People will, 2 seconds after reading "now this is just speculation..." not give a rat's ass what it's presented as and whip themselves into a froth with fantasies about nefarious cabals and virgin blood rituals.

    Remember how Fox put the Alien Autopsy footage on air, and said, "this is speculation, we'll let the facts speak for themselves and let you decide." Remember how the Alien Autopsy footage was fake? Remember how Fox showed that "Moon Landing A Hoax?" show, and said, "this is speculation, we'll let the facts speak for themselves and let you decide." Remember?

    Prefacing something with speculation when you're presenting pseudo-fact or tinfoilisms isn't enough. It allows the conspiracy nuts to get their jollies and still pretend their being objective and empirical.

    (i People are gonna do what they're gonna do, because "crazy" and "unsupported" are subjective. Everyone draws the line somewhere different.

    (o) Lessen the diary limit to two per week instead of two per day. PLEASE! That'll cut down on frivilous crap diaries and also make people think twice before unloading some half-assed theory on Daily Kos. Again, 2 per week, PLEASE. It's almost a panacea! PLEEEEEEEASE!!!

    (u) If you like the huge 500,000 views/day audience, learn to deal with the harsh ass peer review service we usually provide.

    (y) And sometimes ya just gotta ban people.

    "Victory means exit strategy" - George W. Bush 4/9/99 | Why Did They Hate America?

    by Addison on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:42:00 PM PDT

  •  A dose of realism (4.00)
    We've got 50,000 people here and growing. We've got a wealth of people who care passionately about the notion of Democracy in America, and we're all very different in our enthusiasms, hot-buttons, weaknesses, strengths, ways of articulation, and areas of knowledge and/or naivete. This isn't going to change and it's only going to become moreso as things grow.

    As I see it, DailyKos has two main components: The "Front Page" with the "official staff" writing (hopefully) well-researched, well-presented, and well-reasoned pieces on matters that concern them and the community; and the "Readers' Forum", which is the comments on the "Front Page" stories, and everything else.

    Realistically, the "management" of DailyKos has two options given this arrangement. One option is to do away with the "Readers' Forum" portion of the site, or continually threaten with a heavy hammer of censure. This is obviously not very appealing.

    A second and more realistic option is to post a disclaimer just like every other media source: "The opinions expressed in the reader commentaries do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the management". And just leave it at that.

    And I would further state that it is incumbent on the Front-Pagers to make sure that they are reflecting well for the site. Over the years I've seen any number of junky, over-emotional, poorly reasoned or researched, hip-shooting, hostile, conspiratorial, over-the-top, or impolitic "Front Page" articles (IMHO), as well as a lot of very good ones. As with the "Readers' Forum" posts, I let the ones I don't care for float by, or take exception to them in my posted comments in response. "Management" needs to mind their own shop (i.e. quality "Front Page" official articles) and just post a disclaimer for everything else.

    It's a very simple and realistic approach.  Asking for 50K+ (and growing) people to conform to someone else's notion (actually, a number of people's inconsistent and mutually incompatible notions) of what's appropriate and not is a very unrealistic approach to the problem.

    Worrying about what the right-wingers are going to say about comments in the "Readers' Forum" is an exercise in futility.  After all, Ann Coulter has quoted "The New York Times" as having said all sorts of outrageous things. Upon further investigation, it becomes apparent that she was quoting the contents of letters to the editors, or quotes of third parties in articles, and attributing it to "The New York Times". (See Franken's "Lying Liars" for details.)  The right-wing lies flagrantly and they misquote -- it's what they do. Don't sweat it.

    Just post a disclaimer on the site. It's that simple.

    "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

    by DavidW in SF on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:44:39 PM PDT

    •  a dose of un-realism (none)
      i think there needs to be a disclaimer that reads...
      The opinions expressed in the reader commentaries do not necessarily reflect the opinion of poster. always employ a healthy dose of skepticism when reading and evaluating the opinions of the anonymous."

      if everywhere you go smells like dogsh*t, you should probably check your own shoes.

      by monsterofNone on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:46:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Coming late to the party... (none)
    ...but the solution (or a semi-solution anyway) seems simple.  Require a longer membership period and posting history before a person could post a diary.  Perhaps saying that only those with TU status can post diaries.  That would cut down on the vast majority of the off-the-wall diaries, IMO.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:50:40 PM PDT

  •  Good points (4.00)
    DiHinMI, and well-reasoned, regardless of who is behind the too-optimistic assessments at the expense of local action.

    That said, it's possible to think globally and act locally, it's just vital to be realistic. Truly, this presidency will see no Congressional disciplinary action, and there is no lesser evil in the impeachment-scenario lineup to replace Bush.

    One more thing: Baba, don't cavalierly dismiss the criticisms of the official 9/11 story too arrogantly until you have read David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, which is getting increasing attention in respected academic circles. The official 9/11 story stinks to high heaven in multiple places on multiple levels.

    Remember, the Repigs accused anyone who questioned the massive exit-poll discrepancies in Florida, Ohio and New Mexico of being a "conspiracy theorist." Crying "conspiracy theorist!" is how Repigs get Dems to sit down and shut up. Stop rolling over and peeing just because they wave a rolled-up newspaper at you. Do your own investigating, and read up on stuff before you make declarations based on expertise you don't have.

    •  thank you thank you thank you (none)
      It amazes me to see such acceptance of the "official" versions of 9/11 and election 2004. There are too many discrepancies in these accounts to swallow.  Oh, and we are dealing with known liars and folks who think the ends justify the means, not to mention the raw power game of vested interests.

      YOU may not want to believe the possibility of shenanigans going on, you may think you are the wise realist in the midst of a bunch of naive political novices or tin foil hat loonies. However, ridiculing those who want to look a little deeper because things don't add up on the surface really stinks.  

  •  This site (none)
    while be an openly democrat site still as far as I am aware also welcomes non-democrats. I am sure there are a number of posters on here to the left of the democratic party, a number of independents, a number of greens and there used to be a number of sensible republican posters.
    Let's not forget that when an election comes along the democrats will need more than just dedicated cadres to vote for them. Hopefully some of those non-dems in this community will on election days just be swayed. A small point but lets not try to alienate those maybe Dem voters by overreaction.
  •  It's late (none)
    I'm exhausted, I drove sixty miles one way, taught for a few hours, drove sixty miles back, and this after four days straight of mowing and planting and sawing and picking and weeding and hacking and etc. and etc.

    So I didn't and I won't take the time to read all the responses or ponder all the arguments for and against.

    So excuse me for busting right in line in front of everyone else to say HELL YEA!

    I mean I'd love to see the Chimperor impeached, but ain't gonna happen, if only because so many of the Republicans --- including the voters --- are so very ethically corrupt.

    Besides, life happens at street level. Sure, the players are in their little boardrooms smoking cigars and wearing expensive hats and pocket watches and hatching evil plots and whatnot.

    And sure, it's fun to stay lost in your head and spin out theories and plots and conspiracies.

    But we're not Rocky and Bullwinkle. And life happens on the ground, and that's where we need to be. That's where the change needs to take place. That's where the change will happen.

    We need to just put one foot in front of the other, do the basics, get people registered, go to local meetings, walk the talk we're talking and talk the walk and all that stuff.

  •  Thank You (none)
    Thank You, Thank You Thank You Thank You x Infinity.
    Boy did this need to be said.
  •  Enforcing standards is hard (4.00)
    unless there is agreement as to what the standards are.  And with a group this big that ain't gonna happen unless Markos makes up his own standards and forces them on the rest of us.  But that seems unlikely because he is mostly a freedom of expression kind of guy.  

    The occasional exhortation to think critically probably doesn't hurt the place.  But it often comes across something like "Why are these people so stupid?" and then it turns out that maybe the people being criticized aren't really quite so stupid after all.  

    Critical thinking doesn't always go in predictable directions and respect for others needs to be maintained even when said others go in what seem to be naive directions.  I'm pretty sure this place could handle a little more mutual respect for differences.

    I did notice there were discussions of impeachment in places I take more seriously than most diaries here, so maybe it wasn't as far-fetched an idea as all that.  Personally speaking, I find it extremely unlikely unless Dems somehow get control of congress.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:10:04 PM PDT

  •  That's why (none)
    I didn't even read those diaries and just skipped to the non-recommended instead.

    No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. -Eleanor Roosevelt

    by tryptamine on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:29:34 PM PDT

  •  What about Dem Dirty Tricksters? (none)
    You wrote:

    We have people more obsessed with boycotting the Washington Post because Dana Milbank was mean to John Conyers than getting off their butts to register voters for next year.

    If you think the defense of one of the precious few Congress critters that has dared stand up to this administration is worthless, you should take your own advice about living in the reality-based world.  People with power, speaking out, with numbers behind them, is exactly how the wheel is turned.

    Think about how easy it would be for the Republicans to screw up the blogs, especially those run on Scoop that allow people to post diaries.

    If you think any blog to the left of, say, Trent Lott, is "important" in our current environment (look at the administration and the media - and how they both came to be the way they are) then I'd invite you again to consult your definition of being "reality based."

    Am I saying I want this place to become an Mumia Abu Jamal advocacy cite, or a place where we say there are really 10 million American casualties in Iraq, or an arm of "ANSWER"?  No. I see your point.  We cannot to afford to be a centerpiece for anyone's and everyone's delusions and/or pet projects.  

    But you offer no way forward. In fact, you point the way backward.

    We have people obsessed with calling anyone who doesn't want a Stalinist purge of the Democratic party a "Vichy Democrat" than getting off their butts and attending their first meeting of their local, county or Congressional Democratic party organization.

    False choice. There are Vichy Democrats who have crossed to the dark side and become addicted to the corporate teat.  They no longer represent us.  That's why the label "Vichy" stings.  That's why I'll continue to use it as long as certain factions of the party deserve it.  The bounds of decency have trumped the bounds of partisanship.  A great many of us are tired of it.

    At this point, I'm hard pressed to say why anyone should attend a Democratic Party meeting, blog, or anything.  Is the party pro-Iraq War, or against?  What about the Bankruptcy bill?  How about the the split vote on Bush's giveaways to the wealthy?  NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT?  Fuck, what about Terri Schiavo?  When the party has taken both sides of most every single issue, the impulse to make the Dems stand for something is not "Stalinist" - it's only reasonable. It's about clarity.

    I don't see how you can get on your soapbox unless you have a solid basis.  And I promise that I'm not a GOP dirty trickster, nor am I a Green (yet).  I'm simply fed up.

  •  Don't give the GOP too much credit... (none)
    ...for philosophical consistency.  There's no honor among thieves. Like you say, they are corrupt. That is not a tactic, it's a pathology, that exists 24/7.
    The moment any given congressman sees more reward, more career longevity, in turning on their president than in towing the party line, you can color them gone reformist!

    I'm the plowman in the valley with my face full of mud

    by labradog on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:56:13 PM PDT

  •  Republican tricksters (none)
    There should be a way to UNrecommend a diary. If enough people suspect (detect) a troll, the diary should be removed.

    Perhaps an algebraic sum of recommended minus UNrecommended diaries should be put in place, to remove the republican trolls.

    •  Who's a Republican Troll? (none)
      How does one determine which top recommended diaries are done by a republican?  A good number of dKOSers thought the voter fraud diaries were just big conspiracy theories that undermined Democrats as a whole.  Does that mean that the people who wrote voter fraud diaries are republican tricksters?
  •  A recommended diary announcing- (none)

    might very well be construed as a political dirty trick. It is a very Rovian thing to do, sowing the seeds of doubt.  

    Although there is nothing wrong with encouraging involvement with politics at the local level, telling people to cast their eye away from Karl Rove and, in the opinion of the writer, conspiracy theories, is just what the opposition wants too.

    The Republican Party once told us that Watergate was a conspiracy by the Democrats.  They hammered and yelled that Democrats were making mountains out of molehills and the attentions of the press would be better served with more newsworthy stories.
    As it turned out,sometimes simple burglary is not a simple burglary.

    Shining the light on issues is never a bad thing no matter how far fetched or inconceivable. We should be asking the hard questions in the diaries rather than calling everyone to task for being gullible.

  •  Bye Bye Rec List? (none)
    I don't want to be a doomsdayer, but the pessimist inside me sayt this smells of a future removal of the Recommended List by Kos.  It's always been hidden way over there to the right.  One of the biggest things I fear with the upcoming redesign of this site was that the rec list would disappear from the main page.  This diary only adds to my paranoia.

    I know, it's Kos' site, and he can do whatever he wants, and that I'm jumping to conclusions, but please, if you are thinking about it Kos, please don't hide or remove the rec list.  It's an invaluable part of DailyKos, and if anything, should be longer and displayed more prominently.

    This also has the smell of the past rants asking people to stop recommending the voter fraud diaries.  A lot of people seriously think there was massive voter fraud, just like right now, a lot of people think what Bush has done is impeachable.  The message I'm getting from this diary (and the "stop the voter fraud" diaries) is "It's too hard to prove/make happen, so don't even try or make any noise about it".

  •  Republican tricksters: is this another one of (none)
    weird crazy assed conspiracy theories you just dissed?? about paranoia.

    What we need here is better critical thinking.

      I took an eight month leave from this place and there is a dramatic difference betweeen then and now.  Mostly in the level of sheer stinking stupidity which has infested the place.  My God...I never saw so many dumb ass diaries and comments anywhere, ever, not even in a state college.  No logic, no analysis.    It wouldn't hurt one damn bit to make newbies wait longer before they comment.


    by NorCalJim on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:07:17 PM PDT

  •  We need our loopy lefties... (none)
    just like you need our loopy righties so the reality based folks can thread the needle and hopefully come up with ideas and laws that help out the majority.  

    absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

    by jbou on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:07:26 PM PDT

  •  Two things (4.00)
    First - does everybody not seem to get the satire in this post?  He is saying that there are too many crackpot theories, and then he offers up one of his own to show as an example - satire.  I hope.  

    Second - as much as I agree about keeping things "real" here, as unlikely as an impeachment is at this point, isn't all of the talk about impeachment a good thing?  Wouldn't it make people more likely to look into what Bush is really up to if they hear his name associated with impeachment?  At least that's what I thought.

  •  Comment on the comments: (none)
    I just read most of the comments to this diary. Exhausting. There's a lot of paranoia and egomania here!

    Alternative views, even of so called "conspiracy theories", are valuable. Some admittedly more valuable than others...

    I've been attacked for my views here (which I consider brilliant and wonderful BTW), and I think this sort of infighting is silly.

    Attack the message freely, and identify errors or distortions, but leave the messengers alone. (mostly!)

    Systematically censoring or controlling comments is a bad idea - and would go a lot further toward discrediting it than supposed planted counter-intel from the Right... Imagine the righty blogs mocking dKos for "Political Correctness" rules...

    I'd mock it too.

    I'm sure the trolls do hope to do harm, but I doubt Karl Rove has a staff working on it! Talk about conspiracy theories! The twerps who pretend to be blogging here are twerps, not Operatives.

    Thus, the bloggers who care only about keeping the un-cool kids out are twerps too, and just as likely to cause harm to this fine institution.

    Christ, there's already a mechanism for recommending and disrecommending diaries, and that's more than should be needed.

    Let the reader beware!

    And spend the bandwidth on news and ideas.

    •  comment on comment on comments (none)
      Systematically censoring or controlling comments is a bad idea - and would go a lot further toward discrediting it than supposed planted counter-intel from the Right... Imagine the righty blogs mocking dKos for "Political Correctness" rules...

      I agree.  It may even come to pass that the MSM starts to run stories that try to make dKos look like some sort of den of alien abduction buffs.  But I don't think even that should move move us to form up the old circular firing squad.  

      If there ever really was some sort of organized bad-faith attempt to jam very questionable diaries onto the recommended list, that fact and that effort would leave more than enough footprints to enable the management here to take any needed steps.

      The thing the rest of us can do is to just post brief comments pointing out the ways in which anything in the recommended list is not reality-based (though I am not sure that is the best way to put the test).  The main thing is whether or not something needs to be discussed.  I have never done it, but I can imagine wanting to promote a diary I did not agree with where I thought the issue needed to be brought out and discussed.  Of course then I would make it a point to follow that thread, present my argument, and defend it.

  •  I'm a Marxist dirty trickster (none)
    does that count?

    "There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief" -Bob Dylan is my god

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:23:18 AM PDT

  •  Regarding InfilDiaries (none)
    InfilDiaries - Diaries posted by partisan on an enemy site, the objective being to sow dissension, confusion -- or just to create the desired soundbite for the next day's echo chamber.

    I suspect a lot of such diaries are posted to provide not just the right but both parties with "Can you believe those idiots?"

    Or, more accurately...

    I see no reason not to do the same thing, if it's not being done already.

    We're talkin' about justice and fair play, here. :)

    Torture is bad, even when Republicans do it.

    by cskendrick on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 03:47:09 AM PDT

  •  Election Protection (none)
    Read this:
    worrying about whether their local election clerk is competent and getting off their butts to do something to make sure their local elections are conducted fairly.  

    Read it again:

    worrying about whether their local election clerk is competent and getting off their butts to do something to make sure their local elections are conducted fairly.  

    Now, can we all just go do something about this now?

  •  All you have to do (4.00)
    is mention Ralph Nader if you want to bring out the phonies. They are the ones that vilify him every time right here without realizing that he is dead right on globalization, the war, the corporations, and so many things. I think its a deliberate attempt to spread discord among democratic ranks and turn the whole party to the right.
  •  But but but! (none)
    But Karl Rove told the Isrealies to do a controlled demolition of the twin towers while fixing the vote in Ohio at the trilateral comission just like they did in the movie Capricorn One!  And planet X will kill us all any minute!
  •  I am just wondering: (none)
    Why isn't Howard Dean personally drawing up articles of impeachment against George Bush at this very moment?  Isn't that part of his job?
  •  Beautiful (none)
    "We have people obsessed with calling anyone who doesn't want a Stalinist purge of the Democratic party a "Vichy Democrat" than getting off their butts and attending their first meeting of their local, county or Congressional Democratic party organization."

    I couldn't have said it better myself!

  •  I think the DSMs are a dirty trick (none)
    To me, the DSMs are far, far more irrelevant to the whole debate about the war than the "forged" Air National Guard memo. The DSMs don't prove anything whatsoever.

    Clinton almost went to war against Saddam. Op-ed writers were predicting very clearly before the fall 2000 elections that Bush probably would go to war against Saddam. Even if Bush did twist intelligence, the worst thing he did was push the intelligence analysts to tell him what he was already reading in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post. He may have honestly thought that Judith Miller had a better take on Hussein's WMD  than the CIA analysts did. (Remember: in January 2001, as Bush was taking office, Miller ran an absolustely brilliant profile of Al Qaeda. We now know Hussein played her on the WMD issue, but, on Sept. 12, 2001, she was a demigod.)

    What's treasonous about the Iraq war is the way Bush has organized it (no French, German, Chinese or Russian cooperation) and fought it (inadequate armor for troops; overly ambitious goals -- why wasn't the goal simply to topple Hussein? if that were the goal, we'd be out already).

    The only thing promoting the DSM does for opponents of the war is set us up to be knocked down if the Bush people can show the memo was forged. (Likely because they forged it.)

  •  Sitting in the middle... (4.00)
    ... I think both sides are crazy.

    Yeah we have some conspiracy people, and then we have people who think registering voters, business as usual is the way to go and it's some great Rovian plan, or at least it looks that way. Paranoia on the left of me, paranoia on the right.. here I am, stuck in the middle of "progressives", who as an entity, it's becoming clear do not exist.

    Business as usual is not the way to go. It's not about putting hard work in to basic grass routes.

    You guys want to talk about reality based community? Clinton's war was illegal, we are all here trying to get rid of Bush on the legality of his war, and Clinton the love of the left's war was illegal. For exactly the same reasons as Bush's war was. So yeah business as usual, but another Yale grad in the Whitehouse, who we know will enforce the unwritten rule that protects society, and protects prosperity above ALL ELSE. And he did it when only a small amount of people had been ethically cleansed, killing far more than were killed and plunging the country in to civil war that is still raging 10 years after the event. Keeping together another country, like Iraq, that may never work because of ethnic and religious wedges.

    Business as usual, forget change, nothing wrong with the system, stop looking for answers. We have them all! Register voters, that's the answer, grass roots, grass roots! We are the "reality based community".

    No, that's as naive as believing we can impeach Bush, or that the next Democratic president will not continue policies that keep developing nations poor, and American goods cheap. The reality based community, where the little people pay for the political campaigns of the Dems, while their employers pay the political campaigns of the Republicans. We can fight these people, stop their polices that are lowering our wages.. we will fight them with our own money until we have no extra money to fight them.

    Here we are in the reality based community, lording a liar over a liar, trying to get another liar in to power... oh no she was a victim of a liar. Trying to impeach over something we have no problem with a Democrat doing, hey they were white people he bombed, that must be worth something?

    The reality is it was created by us, not just by selling bombs and Chemicals and choosing who will run the country. We created Iraq, we kept three different people together forcing them to live together, and they didn't want to. We enabled a minority to rule the majority, we enabled that, Clinton, Regan and Bush(co) made the policy, sent the troops, armed the right people, passed on our tax money. And we want to do it all again don't we, because if the Republicans are not in power, then we can go back to being oblivious to the crimes of America and England, because it's our guy in power! And we will defend him with the vigor the right are defending Bush.

    Even the Democrats and people here talk part in the illogical view that the Democrats care about this much lorded word called Democracy. You forget so quickly that Kerry wanted the World to play a bigger part in this war, so a bigger part of their obligation, even though in all these nations (including even America and Australia now) the vast majority of the people of there countries were against the war. So Kerry, like Bush would pressure governments to go against the basic principal of Democracy (i.e. force via diplomatic and economic pressure, to go against the will of their people).... erm in the name of Democracy. That to me, where one sovereign nation can force another to go against the will of their own people, is the very definition of an Empire. Bill did it, Bush(co) did it, and Hillary, Dean or who ever will also do it. Every President for decades has done it. Business as usual, get Hillary in and everything will be OK! Polarize the nation more, continue to bully, covertly change and arm the World and you will make friends all over the World. Who will have the balls to say we will no longer supply arms to developing nations? Who will have the balls to get the World round a table and sign a treaty asking everybody else to do the same? I know the people of the World, on mass would think that's a good move. Public support would be immense, political capital would sky rocket for all involved. Who will do it? A Dem? I am not holding my breath.

    Business as usual, back to reality. The reality where there is nothing wrong with the political system, lets just play the game, raise money, register voters, door to door work, that's how we will win! Win what? We will win more business as usual from the politicians. Where the aim of American economic and military dominance, is not posted on a web site with a flash name like "new American century" but it is still very much alive in the minds of the decision makers. Where the Democratic members in Chicago slash public retirement funds because they did not have enough money to pay for services. In this reality based community we did not hear ANYTHING about that, why? Because we are as delusional about certain things as the wingnuts are, we are as blind to the crimes of our own as they are, to the crimes of Bush.

    I am sorry but neither side of this debate or the wider Left vs Right is even close to reality. Even close to solutions. If the Dems get in they will have to play the games of the corporate World, they always have. Al the while the corporate World will be patiently waiting to get their man in power again for a period of de-regulation tax breaks, so they can spread American homogeny to every corner of the earth.

    Maybe Markos can smell a political career, so he just wants to conform to all this. He knows he wouldn't get anywhere and a truly progressive platform, not even with the party of progressives. He wants to look mainstream democratic and he wants his community to look that way god dammit! In a truly Democratic way, he would like the majority to be silenced, in favor of the power elite. Markos, this is what got us in to the mess in the first place. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, put the most concise case for some of the things we cannot fathom forward. There is no other explanation from the left as that comes close to giving us answers. Why, after the election, they were so angry. The insults of Liberal elite, why they were still crying about Hollywood even months after the election. Mr. Frank to me seems to be correct, that the right have been framing us as the very thing they are, an elite over class taking way their power, making choice for them that are against their best interests. That a general feeling that all politicians did not listen and did not care, was package up and turned around on us. And now the progressive blogosphere elite do the same to their own.

    This place is going down hill, but only because it's becoming the blogspot for business as usual. Progressive ideas, and ideas in general are best found by brainstorming, by throwing out ideas, not be afraid to throw out bad ideas, and if it is bad, not caring and moving on to the next idea. Eventually one good one will come out of many bad ones. But here, there is a culture of jumping on the bad ideas and ridiculing that person. A political pissing match with the baseline of rules being, business as usual. That's not, in any way, what I believe progressive to mean. Are we inclusive or do we have a hierarchy? Are WE lowering expectation or are we ourselves lowering expectations? Is it them that are having internal power struggles or is it our blogosphere? I am beginning to wonder. I think they are "seriously in question right now".

    •  if you are right... (none)
      ..what steps do you recommend so that we can keep this site pure of thought?  perhaps kos can post a detailed mission statement on the frontpage in order to remind everyone which ideals we stand for...socialized medicine, unfettered abortion rights, military pullback, forced income redistribution and a bigger federal government footprint in industry and education, to name just a few...

      from each according to his means, to each according to his needs

      by dummy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All i know... (4.00)
        is that we cannot continue to do business as usual. People do not want that. They do not want one party for big business and one against. They do not want one for DOCTORS AND WOMENS right to choose, and one for state regulated. They do not want, and we should be able to see now, that two political ideologies rooted in past times are counter productive.

        We cannot allow Somalia, Vietnam, Cuba or Iraq to continue. WE (and we do it as well) cannot continue to spout rhetoric about Democracy, while supporting dictators who are friendly. We cannot keep enabling that with our dependence on anything.

        Where are the progressive voices advocating increasing science funding by trillions? Where are the long term ideas (you know even past 2008). Where are the progressive voices who believe the stock exchanges and floating companies on the exchange is the root of the problem? Tying in corporation to the wishes of their shareholders, who OF COURSE want more profits. But no, in the progressive community it's all about the evil companies, it has nothing to do with the investors or the shareholders who buy the stocks for a reason, to make money. And the stock exchange has never been an accurate measure of a companies worth, it's extremely inaccurate.

        We are locked in to the value we already associate with the party, be it Democrats or Republicans. We support them, verbatim but THEY, the Dems got us in to this mess. They did not speak up against the war, they did not ask questions about the intelligence. They rolled over and kissed up to the president at a time of war, before it was a war. When people in the CIA were quitting left right and center, they ignored them. When Conyers went with over half a million signature to the Whitehouse, they ignored him (Kerry, Dean and even Reid did not sign for all their "they want us to fight rhetoric").

        We have to look at ourselves and ask do we want change or do we want our side to win. For the most part it seems we just want our side to win and go back to its ways. When will America be a leader of the World by progressive and POSITIVE means? When will a Democrats or a Republican even, run a race on the vision of a bright future, a better World, rather than attack politics and wedge issues? It also seems that most here want us to fight back, on their terms. On the model they have created, not reality. Reality cuts through everything else, and I for one do not believe the American people have entirely been fooled by frames. I have more respect for them than that, I believe they are more intelligent than that. I believe part of the problem is our own, the failure of progressive ideas, the lack of new ideas, business as usual. I don't believe setting out a mission statement set in stone is constructive, you only attract people who also agree with you. One thing we should learn is that part of the issue is people seeking out media, blogs, newspapers and news sources that justify their own opinion. It is that human nature, not a vast right wing conspiracy, than has enabled this to happen. WE the liberals also do the same, we seek to justify our own beliefs, we seek to have backed up by others. I believe the voices knocking the Kos posters are setting up exactly the same problem. They want it to be their views that are visible, because they know they are right, and people who also believe will find them and everybody get it on and agree how right they are, while vast sections of the voting population look on confused, who will just go elsewhere and have their views justified by somebody else. What does that achieve?

        Kos has something positive to contribute, but not if it tears it's self apart. Not if people are shunned for their beliefs, not if people are intellectually bullied for their beliefs. If all you are capable of is sly elitist remarks, and you cannot explain on the power of your ideas YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN POLITICS. You should be in the corporate World or the Republican party.

        •  hear hear! (none)
          we all signed on to this project because we believed that kos spoke for US...understood our issues and was willing to fight.  are you now saying that kos has decided to use this blog as merely a way to further his own or otherwise...perhaps to join the mainstream and throw US all to the wolves?

          from each according to his means, to each according to his needs

          by dummy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:39:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Right on the money! (none)
          There are many ex-conservatives and ex-liberals who are coming together in realization that this left-right political spectrum is false. The vast bulk of elected Democrats are every bit as supportive of this administration's fascist agenda as the Republicans are. And it is exactly these misnamed "conspiracy" issues that are bringing this alliance together: 9-11, election fraud, impending martial law to name a few.

          For more on why I am no longer giving scads of money to Democratic candidates as I did last year, see Alex Jones' "9-11: Road to Tyranny" and his newest documentary "Martial Law 911". You can download them  using most bit torrent search sites or PtP clients.

  •  So, let me get this straight... (4.00)
    Reality-based hypothesis (i.e. no tin foil present): Republican dirty tricksters take the time to infiltrate democratic blogs, set up screen names, write diaries, recommend diaries all in a complicated, intricate plot to influence opinion and get us all mis-directed.

    NON-Reality-based hypothesis (i.e. PLENTY of tin foil): Republicans engaged in a complicated, lengthy process to fix the 2000 and 2004 election.

    I'm confused....

    Canadians care too...

    by jbalazs on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 07:44:20 AM PDT

  •  Diary vs. Plagiarism (none)
    When is it a diary, when is it just plagiarism? Some of the comments above refer to yesterday's diary on the British diplomat, Carne Ross. The poster of that diary seems to pull heavily from AmericaSedition. Case in point -- one of the two diaries he posted on Saturday War on "Intelligence Failure" is pulled word-for-word from a June 18 article on that site. Unless this dKos user is also the author of the item on AmericaSedition, is this not breaking some kind of rule?
    •  I'm wrong (none)
      It's not plagiarized -- he owns the recently registered Now I'm just wondering if his frequent posts with links to AmericaSedition may just be an effort to drive up traffic on that site? In the diaries I've looked at he's never said that he has any association with AmericaSedition.
  •  I guess I don't see what all the fuss is about (none)
    The only way I can see a fanciful post doing any real harm is if it creates a legitimate distraction from other more pressing topics.  But, as far as I've seen, most of the impeachment talk has come as an addendum to the central DSM story (which I think most would agree is important) rather than the driving force behind it.  If, two months from now, we're still seeing 10+ DSM diaries a day and all we have to show for it is the occasional cable news mention, then I'll agree that the story has become a real distraction.  But, in the meantime, I think it is raising the attention-level, if not in the general public then definitely in the agenda-setting intelligentsia, concerning fundamental truths about the Bush administration.

    Of course, if there's anyone working harder toward impeachment than toward elections 2006 & 2008, then your comments are spot-on.  But, frankly, happenings at local democratic organizations aren't much for blog-fodder.  And, while I totally agree that we can use more noise about the need for local participation, I seriously doubt anyone that would have participated is going to be persuaded from doing so by blog-induced fantasy.  

    We all have stories we would like to see get more visibility than they do - I personally think the Republican CPB takeover is as important as anything going - but, at the end of the day, I think one's inclination to read a diary is more influenced by their intrinsic interest in that diary rather than by the alternative attraction of other diaries.

  •  This diarist can go back to the Pistons.. (none)
    seems to be his major subject of interest, besides taking broadsides at those he disagrees with.

    Meanwhile I will continue to post comments about the Washington Post's ed policy. Take a look at Toles cartoon in the WaPo today, and Dionne's apologist op column, written as if to deny the DSM. You may think that proposing a debate ("resolved that...") on a boycott of the WaPo is a non-reality based idea, but it isn't. The non-reality based idea is that the WaPo is gonna listen to the 10,000 and first letter or email that we have all earnestly sent in. Economics is reality. Sorry to disturb your fantasy world. The WaPo will respond to a decrease in circulation. You may think that posting several variations of that message on different threads is obsessive, but it really is only illustrative of two phenomenona: first, getting the word out is not a matter of one comment on one thread. Secondly, the issue of the media coverage, esp the WaPo, comes into almost every issue we deal with.
    The diarist thinks he knows what diarists are doing re elections, votes, etc. What a joke.

    Good luck with the Pistons, diarist, put up another diary on them. Everyone wants to be kept up to date on that reality. And if you want to continue ad hominems, you just blast away.

    In the meantime, the WaPo is laughing at you, and so am I.

    Why would a liberal, Kossack, progressive or Democrat buy the Washington Post?

    by seesdifferent on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:22:52 AM PDT

    •  There Are Some People Who... (none)
      ...I could care less if they're laughing at me.  You're one of them.

      Actually, scratch that.  I'd be more concerned if you weren't laughing at me.  Knowing you're laughing at me consoles me, and convinces me I'm probably right.

  •  I would think this diary paranoia (none)
    If I hadn't seen SO MANY new members these past few weeks posting anti-Dean or pro-torture comments.  I mean all of a sudden these people hit the blog and start counter propaganda.

    I urge everyone to click on the name of the person posting something you think reeks of right wing spin.  If you see that this is their first post, or their third post in the same diary repeating the same right wing talking point ad nauseum - TROLL RATE THEM.  That's what the system is for - to root these people out.

    This is not stifling debate.  This is getting rid of subversive propaganda from our blog.  Nothing is more annoying to me right now than the do-gooder out there who counteracts troll ratings with 4's to "keep debate going".  There's a difference between being involved in a debate and getting played.

    I'm tired of getting played.  Are you?

    •  Troll Rating (none)
      I don't really know how the comments thing works. I didn't even realize it existed for a few weeks. I'm confused. If troll-rating means giving 0s to comments, does it really have any effect? Is a point reached when the user has their privileges withdrawn or is it just a vanity thing? Is the idea that if the user gets a succession of 0s, then they will be embarrassed and stop posting? If that's the case, it wouldn't work very well with thick-skinned individuals or if there are actually right-wingers "infiltrating" dKos.

      And can anyone post a diary once they have registered and gone through the initial waiting period? or do they have to attain a certain status?

  •  ah, the... (none)
    plea for "intellectual hygiene" returns...

    Let me help...

    PEOPLE: PLEASE STOP those non-politically-oriented MUSIC diaries such as was posted last night. We NEVER will register a voter if we post things like "I like bluegrass music" or "Here are some MP3 files of music I composed." No election ever was won by waxing poetic about Chopin or even, heaven forbid, Shania. There certainly is no room for that here, and I suggest that those who DO post such inane, unworthy, tainted, fanciful, distracting diaries take FULL responsibility for them. I mean, really: If you care about being associated with the reality-based community, it's up to you.

    "I have come here to chew bubble gum and to kick ass...and I'm all out of bubble gum. Oh -- have you read the Downing Street Minutes yet?"

    by Newton Snookers on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

  •  Its' always easier and more fun (none)
    to criticise democrats from the rear. (50% pure snark content).

    People are critical of fantasy based diaries. Unfortunately when they are.. they are quickly assaulted with troll ratings. There's a definitely freepish element hidden in the Kossack ranks.

    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

    by cdreid on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:50:01 AM PDT

  •  Convene the House Unkossakian Activities Committee (none)
  •  and I always thought (none)
    from the nasty tone of some of your postings that you were a troll.


  •  It's easy (none)
    Rovian and right wingers always act like the know with absolute certainty what will happen and what all the facts are. When one of our side is dreaming we admit it usually with a preface of some sort, showing that we understand the difference between hypothetical and empirical reality. When one of their sides is dreaming, they can;t tell the difference, and use phrases like "It's obvious to anyone with any sense in theie head what's going to happen next", sounds reasonable, but look deeper and you'll see that it's just another version of biblical thought.
Meteor Blades, Leslie in CA, Chris Bowers, teece, sdf, Mark Sumner, Ottoe, Jett, Alumbrados, Civil Sibyl, Frank, Preston, Armando, tunesmith, winterfresh, LeislerNYC, CJB, pb, pine, hazey, Sean Robertson, Pluto101, lightiris, switzerblog, Scott in Montreal, Izixs, debcoop, Fran for Dean, liza, knowthings, teenagedallasdeaniac, GOTV, punishinglemur, Mordecai, Tulip, moon in the house of moe, JamesB3, lrhoke, Joan McCarter, Croatoan, Blue the Wild Dog, musing85, ltrs, ftm, LSdemocrat, da, zubalove, stumpy, Reino, kathyp, jgontero, Winger, sacrelicious, Lahdee, Robespierrette, dengre, Yoshimi, OxyLiberal, Stoy, Condor, kolors, SwimmertoFreedom04, Cathy, gsteff, rogun, HadIt, shumard, wintersnowman, DCDemocrat, Imp of the Perverse, EricInTexas, LynnS, rhubarb, bawbie, benchcoat, Ddeele, movie buff, Texas Steve, jkfp2004, polecat, jsmdlawyer, mugsimo, Page van der Linden, The Maven, Luam, wmandevi, lilorphant, Muboshgu, Newsie8200, object16, jedc, Desroko, Entheate, Bruce The Moose, fabooj, Addison, eyeswideopen, FleetAdmiralJ, GregNYC, KB, dianem, PeteB2, EricS, iamLadybug, Mary Julia, guyute16, Dr Portia, bluesquid, Ti Jean, erobinson, ScantronPresident, Yup Ya Betcha, Omar, miholo, stevej, mhale85, daubs, BlueManInRedState, SLJ, political, moiv, mrblifil, biggb23, eriposte, nepolon, sgilman, L0kI, LondonYank, Toktora, aruac, swillesque, NonemptySubset, MadEye, erquirk, LesforKE, eps, uraniumjones, antirove, Cardinal96, deadinthewater, Admiral Santa, AlphaGeek, Barbara Morrill, TexDem, missliberties, Nancy in LA, Blue Neponset, alivingston, Boppy, cincylibrul, Caldonia, traitorbushchimp, 42, bitterguy, PitPat, joliberal, Markg8, East Bay Molly Girl, Sargent Pepper, 4jkb4ia, Sheims, Cablep, General Disarray, MyPOV, TheCrimsonKid, eleanora, YetiMonk, Lefty Law Student, Toastman, Marianne Benz, buttermyself, NambyPambyPinkoCommie, crafty, Timroff, peelinglayers, a517dogg, SteveK, abbey, MichDeb, vcmvo2, Stranger in a strange land, Bluesee, saodl, BornOn911, liberal atheist, patrioticliberal, Alegre, alopour, Louise526, ejmw, demnow, Alien Abductee, JessicaDrewSW, stitchmd, Henry Parsons, Doctor Devlin, surgo, RepublicanTaliban, 5oclockshadow, AnnArborBlue

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site