Do not use my name or the name of any of my blogs for your petty vendetta against Markos Moulitzsa Zuniga or DailyKos

.... who or what you're talking about.
[/snark]

Not cool to make claims about us on other sites that are misleading.

I will point out that Daily Gotham, although most of us are white men writing for it, was one of the main sites that addressed head on local race issues surrounding certain elections. We got lots of shit from white liberals and lots of thanks from local black bloggers.

So the color of your skin doesn't necessarily color how you think. Still, the contributor in question has made some good points now and again and I have head from many that they find the dominant mindset on dKos is stiffling. But I agree that he turns it into an unproductive vendetta.

We are all on the same side and should not let differences over a primary get in the way with our common ground.

Liza said "I am this close getting all ghetto on your ass" I am wondering if such phrasing is as un-politically correct as using the N-word. After all, using such a phrase as "ghetto your ass" implies that the ghetto is a bad place. That is a stereotype.

A ghetto is defined (using the definition at answers.com) as "A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background" Nothing in that definition says bad or dangerous or awful. You can live in a ghetto that could be a mighty fine place to live, it just happens to be what it is, a neighborhood populated by numbers of people of a certain economic and/or ethnic status.

Now when Liza uses "ghetto your ass" is it not like using the "N" word, giving it a negative stereotype? I don't even agree with the city council proposal to deal with excessive use of the "N" word because it is free speech, but that doesn't make it correct speech. Nor do I think it is correct speech for Liza to use the word "ghetto" to describe how she might get bad or do bad or nasty to a user that is annoying her. Ghettos do not have to be bad, are not all bad. We have to get away from such stereotypes. In my opinion.

I don't mean to pull the old-age stuff on you. I will just say how I feel about getting upset, on or off the cybersphere. First, about my mother. We four children and our parents were cooped up in two rooms in below zero weather during winter months. We had long since obeyed her about not fighting in the house. But there were always tendencies to let go with words. Her admonition was that "if you can't say anything pleasant, don't say anything." One other thing, in our utter whiteness, there were still ethnic battles. Once the other kids at school were willing to tell what kind of hyphenated Americans they were, and we couldn't answer, so we asked her. She told us we were just Americans, always say that. As I grew older, I wondered how much she had put up with during World War I. Both my parents have German surnames. She told how the Lutheran schools who taught classes in German changed to keep from having trouble with the neighbors. And then at a rare moment of letting her mind go back in time, she mentioned that people had to be very careful about letting their children eat treats, because they might have ground glass in them.
I don't know what makes people so mean. But I like you folks and I know you are trying to make the world a better place. I've seen that cute young man who runs Daily Kos on TV and I admire his knowledge and his business acumen. However, I don't know what part business plays in many blogs. I know for sure where political candidates' motives come from. And blogs are run by organizations, be they NRA or AFSC, we can be pretty sure the motivation.
I quite seriously would like your explanation of what causes a political blog to survive well and to carry out its stated mission.

Hi, David. I think the specter of Selma has got to us all. JJ has a good take on the dueling preachers of last Sunday.
Maybe this isn't really scientific but I've read where it is. Two-thirds of communication is non-verbal, the other third verbal. Meaning voice inflection, facial mien, stance--the whole posturing thing--carries the argument, and politicians know that. Kerry on the Summit drove me crazy when I campaigned for him. In the early stages it was so pronounced that I posted a friendly hint about teaching the camera not to shoot from below.
You and I have known each other for so long that I was not put off when I saw your picture on this site. I always thinking of you as coochy cooing Jacob. But I decided not to put my picture on, because I thought I should act "young" which led me to a picture of me hugging a big Santa. Then I thought, Oh, my God! They'll think I'm a religious nut or something. Or just a nut.
Sometimes the language displayed on blogs, in general, seem out of place with the subject. I still am in the old days with a yahoogroup. If I used foul language there they could kick me off. All of this became relevant with the dustup over Edwards' short involvement with a couple of bloggers. And then came the Coulter/CPAC caper. And it's all on YouTube.
I suppose you are a little like me--don't much care for excesses in political journalism. The WP reporter was taken to task over making too many conclusions before the Libby verdict, for example.
I also thought about places like politicalcortex, which is pretty wonkish at times, but as far as I know there is only one member who goes out of his way to say extreme things, which are probably considered satire. I personally like the fellow from Long Island who is quite analytical. Lately, I follow what Rob Kall is doing on OpEdNews. That started because I could pick up my Knoxville columnist's piece there. (He got the shaft, by the way, and is not with the Sentinel any more. It was over too many articles against Bush.) You can see all Don Williams articles on OpEdNews.
It gets down to a question of how much is back fence chatter and how much is deeper political punditry, I suppose, in the kind of pages we contribute to.
So no answers from me. Just something to ponder.

Dear Liza, David, Michael and Culture Kitchen Readers:

Thank you for publicly stating your reasons for considering banning me from Culture Kitchen. I believe that all blogs should give their readers and posters the respect of making transparent decisions about the pruning of public discourse, rather than practice the secret abortions of public opinion that have become all too common in the blogosphere.

I believe you have already done your duty to Markos and everyone in the “progressive” and Democratic communities by stating unequivocally that my opinion are my own and that you do not necessarily endorse anything I say simply by virtue of it being posted at Culture Kitchen. Since people often take opposition positions in their advocacy, e.g. theist and atheist, you obviously cannot be said to endorse everything that is posted at Culture Kitchen. The mere fact of allowing someone to post an opinion does not mean that you endorse or agree with it. I think you have made this perfectly clear.

If the progressive blogosphere is NOT the place to criticize and rail against Markos and DailyKos, then what IS the place? Should we go directly to the mainstream media with our criticisms, airing our dirty progressive laundry in public? Should we publish our disagreements among Democrats in the Washington Post, as Markos did when he attacked Hillary Clinton last year? Or should we address issues first among ourselves on the Left, no matter how uncomfortable it may be? When Markos expelled me from DailyKos, he effectively compelled me to take my issues with him to a wider audience.

It seems to me that anything that is published for public viewing anywhere can be reasonably reprinted anywhere else. The value added of the Internet is that it effectively makes “one cloth” out of all of the pieces published on the Internet, through linking of pages as well as through citation and quotes. Once we publish something, we have no control over how it may be used or when or where.

So, once you publish an opinion or information at Culture Kitchen or Daily Gotham, that publication can never be private again and its uses are really beyond all of our control. If you say at Daily Gotham that you oppose racism and I re-publish that opinion at the Francis L. Holland Blog, in a new context, that in now way implies that you have endorsed me or my blog, except to the extent that your actual words say that you have. However, it is inevitable that if you post against racism others will repeat your ideas in many forums. And the fact that I announce that an idea is “Cross-posted at Culture Kitchen” no more implies an endorsement by you than a library endorses a book by including that book among the stacks.

However, when a library removes all of the books of a certain author from the stacks, that DOES have a very important meaning – CENSORSHIP. “Banning” at a blog is the digital equivalent of censorship – or book burning - at a brick and mortar library, because the intention is the same: To prevent the public from accessing and considering all of the views available on a particular subject.

I agree with you that correspondence that is intended to be private should remain private. However, I also strongly hold that any demands that a writer refrain from writing about a certain subject and threats to ban (censor) a writer should be made in public, except in the rare cases where public notice would risk libel or invasion of the privacy of a private individual.

Transparency is crucial to the free flow and exchange of ideas. When you privately order me to desist from criticizing a public figure like Markos Moulitsas, or a public blog like DailyKos, you are engaging in censorship of information that is crucial to the public’s right to know. When you consider censoring such information, the public has a right to know what information and opinions are being intentionally restricted and withheld, and they have a right to know why.

Markos Moulitsas is “chairman” of a political force – DailyKos – that is attempting to change our society in fundamental ways. The public has a need and a right to have more information about Markos and DailyKos to decide whether they have the moral authority, standing and judgment to push the Democratic Party in the directions that they propose. This is an urgent public policy matter that is far more important than any individual’s friendship or association with Markos or others at DailyKos. We are speaking about the direction of a nation and its foreign policy, and even institutional personal loyalties (and animosities) need to be subsumed to the larger good.

Nor does the perceived “rudeness” of a particular author justify censorship of some or all of that author’s opinions. The appropriate response to someone whom you or others perceive to be rude is to ignore that person - not to ban that person’s ideas from public consideration. And yet the latter response – totalitarians – is all-too-common at blogs of the Left and the Right. Some of us may be constitutionally or situationally incapable of presenting our opinions in a deferential way, but that does not mean that society can safely ignore our opinions without negative consequences devolving from that policy. Everyone has a right to speak at the risk of being ignored.

Markos believes he knows who should be President in 2008 and he will undoubtedly endorse a candidate in the primaries, arguing that he represents the “netroots”. I disagree that he represents the netroots based on the exclusionary nature of DailyKos demographics. I also believe that an understanding of Markos history, motives and institutional behavior is relevant to the public’s judgment of the weight that Markos endorsement should be given.

Markos consistently criticizes whomever he chooses to criticize, including Democratic politicians and other progressives. For him to try to use his institutional muscle and personal connections to squelch criticism of himself and his views is unjust and repugnant. It perpetuates the monopoly of information and opinion by an “old boys’ network.” The more Markos endeavors to prevent others from challenging his opinions throughout the blogosphere, the more certain is the revolt against the authoritarian and totalitarian impulses manifested in that attempted control.

Too often “progressive” blog publishers feel a need and moral obligation to consider whether the views of Democratic Party blog participants are worthy of consideration by the public. I submit to you that that is a fundamental misconception about the role of a progressive blog publisher. A blog should leave to public the role of sorting out what is true and what is false, not by censoring views and information, but by forcefully and publicly refuting view and information. If I unfairly criticize Markos, then let his supporters and bystanders say so publicly, so that everyone can be better informed. Both criticism and praise will increase publication of Markos’ ideas, but no one has a right to have their ideas, advocacy and public behavior go unchallenged. Not even Markos Moulitsas.

With his half-Greek and half-Salvadoran heritage, Markos, in my opinion, is what is called a “white Hispanic. Because his skin is white, he is only considered a minority in America if he chooses to be so. Marcos cannot be characterized as a “Latino advocate” or “Hispanic advocate” because he rarely mentions these communities in his blogging. Moreover, the pronounced lack of Latino participation at DailyKos leads me to suspect his roots in these communities and his commitment to these communities. I understand that bilingual blogging is frowned upon at DailyKos – a fact that has been raised and that continues to limit access of progressive views to progressive Latino eyes and ears.

As a result of the American context, I am personally torn about issues involving skin-color and ethnicity. Although I value many white people personally, I hate and struggle daily against the white supremacy paradigm, particularly against the white male monopoly of the presidency of the United States. I and people like me have for too long been demeaned and restricted by whites supremacy prejudices and prejudiced behaviors, and I cannot desist from struggling against such behavior no matter where they originate, whether within minority communities and persons or majorities communities and persons. The fact that Markos has Latino forbears ought no more shields him from criticism than the fact that I have Black skin should shield me from criticism. Clarence Thomas has proven to all of us that it is ideas and behavior that count, not skin color or ethnicity.

I leave you with this question: If I ought not criticize Markos in the progressive blogosphere, where SHOULD I criticize him, or is he above criticism?

If you order me not to criticize Markos at Daily Gotham and Culture Kitchen, please do so formally and publicly. When I continue to criticize Markos, please censor me publicly, to allow the public to see understand the “progressive” principle that Markos Moulitsas, and perhaps all progressives, are above criticism.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

francislholland@yahoo.com
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

francislholland@yahoo.com

Collegial deliberation and action by definition takes place between *colleagues* in sustainable, conducive communities carefully created for same -- not in random encounters, exposed to the elements on public street corners full of traffic noise, powerless rage and the stink of demented detritus.

Here's the kind of progressive collegial exchange of real thinking and analysis for which I love Culture Kitchen, for which I first became (and mean to remain) a contributor. I never blogged anywhere before Liza invited me here and I still don't except at my own place with Nance. I don't even READ much political infighting online -- anywhere but here, sigh -- and so I trust Liza, David, Michael and Lorraine to continue building it on this higher plane where intelligence and collegiality meet, thoughtfully connecting culture cues to create new meanings and possibilities, not on some decaying lowest common denominator, urban street gang drive-by-shooting model.

Margaret and I hit on a forum topic idea last night, about collegial cooperation for the common good rather than personalized oppositional ranting. It reminded me yet again,of how hard it is to see the difference sometimes, how hard we need to work at not getting stampeded out into the streets to be dismissed by regular workaday folk as raving lunatics rather than their fellow citizens and colleagues:

I'm thinking today that, if and when the world ends, trying to stay off the street corner where the lunatics rant on, this conversation would be a more worthy CK forum topic by far, than the recent unwelcome interjection of random street rage based on personal powerlessness and self-loathing.

Liza said:

"I have earned the right to say these things"

It doesn't have anything to do with "the right" to say anything. The Constitution gives you the right to say these things, but it does not make it proper or correct. The "N" word and use of "ghetto" as slang for violence ("ghetto your ass") are demeaning stereotypes. Which no one, black or white, ought to be using. Liza, you don't help the progressive causes using words like that, or by implying that you have suffered more and thus earned more rights than anyone else by virtue of your ethnicity or where you grew up.

I increased my vocabulary a little. And have some rare ones of my own, but you all don't need them. I'm a serious type, but I'm not a goody goody two shoes. It's good to introduce ourselves. I've written about my mother's rules before. She didn't like heated names for a person's ethnicity. She's the only one I've ever known who wouldn't listen to Archie Bunker because he wasn't respectful. I thought it was wonderful that finally we were adult enough to broadcast them.
It's better to talk about what's rattling our cages than to look for sugar coated gibes.
I asked about what the blobs, political ones, have as a function. At the least I believe that everyone's choice should be given attention. I confess I'm a political wonk so I tend to throw in some unneeded embellishments at the time.
Let me introduce my idea of politics. Elections are just about the least a citizen has to do to fulfill his/her obligation to a nation. We live in a republic and we elect someone to represent us. So, vigilance is important. Because I have seen twists and turns in prevailing issues over the years, I may be tedious with "I remember when." When I wrote about navigating the street car system in Atlanta in 1948, I see it through 60 years of changes, many of which are still superficial in my view. In the final act, it's the humanness we recognize in others which gives us some sense of being human.
And then JJ piped in. How are we doing? Beats me! We wonder why cooperation is harder to cultivate in people than competition. Or some such thing. I hope that's what you meant, JJ.

Sometimes I think we observe political candidates too much. Who's to have faith in the "handlers" or whatever the proper name is for the folks who run campaigns? For example, the latest word is that McCain's help quit. They were mad because they had a summer date set up for his announcement. And he decided to come out sooner.
I've heard the expression about herding cats at least twice today. But on to what we were trying to accomplish re cooperation.
Mole just posted a well-structured explanation of how Culture Kitchen works. On this very thread there was a lot of dissonance according to me. By having the leaders define for us how to proceed, things will be more fruitful.
In a sense this discussion is similar to governing in general. We decide on someone to represent us to make laws and oversee there execution. The representative is beholden to the majority who voted for him but he is also required to look after the minority. The president has a role to carry out the laws he signs and to act as a cheerleader for the citizens. By definition, he is more partisan, but still cannot overlook the welfare of all citizens. Thus the majority of Americans are fed up with Bush, not because he runs a poor war but because he acted arrogantly toward us. It's incomprehensible to me that a president could say that he is the commander-in-chief of the Congress. I heard it with my own ears and didn't believe it, so I waited for a rerun before giving him a lesson in Government 101. At least he let's us write e-mails to him. I know some wouldn't do that--too disrespectful, too likely to be punished for it, or just too disillusioned to think it makes any difference. Voting is such a small part of being a good citizen.
In our idea of a project to look for re cooperation, there are so many ways we could be involved. I like to write letters to newspaper columnists long before election time. If I pick out a few who seem to have studied political campaigns I can revisit them to help reinforce the good points of my choice.
Come to think of it, the only person in the country who doesn't have to be investigated for a job is the POTUS. It's okay for voters to check out how many jobs he's had and how he performed them, if they can find verifiable data. And it's okay to try to size up his social values. But the one thing which does not make sense is to worry about gender or skin color. Yet we, the more informed voters, often get stuck in just such mazes. Women can be presidents in other countries so I assume American women are as likely to be candidates. However, to expect women to vote for her just because she is a woman is actually to deny her real worth. Same with any hyphenated-American. So, I ask, is anyone really helping the cause of his/her choice by bringing up those unchangeable circumstances? Instead of outright debates over one's choice would it not be better to engage in a discussion?
Come to think of it, this is recognized in formal declamation. In debate rules there is supposed to be a brass ring. But in formal group discussion there is room for consensus. Usually two to a side and with set rules of how and when to speak. This blog, less formal, has some of the same characteristics.
If you're interested, do you suppose four woman could set out to discover why & why not Hillary should be the next president. I opted for her because it seems such a vigorous subject especially by men.

In those long ago days of conscience raising done in brownbag lunches with NOW sisters, I think we got pretty well past some of the stereotypes about ourselves. The bitchiness syndrome, for example. Once we acknowledged that women are often their own worst enemies, we lightened up. We accepted each other as human beings and we even could see the ironic side of some common problems we faced. So names like Queen Bee and Dumb Broad were not slurs but categories which had held women back at work and home.
For my part, I did not like stopping so soon. In a sense I left the talk when men had become challenges more than obstacles. But that was not a giant leap into understanding. Of course the corporate world was into understanding the old battle of the sexes was dead, with or without federal legislation. We were liberally given doses of sensitivity training, usually from men. Nowadays they seem to call it diversity training and I've encountered women in the field. The objective is to have employees respect each other. Although a first step, it is not a way of developing true understanding of basic human values. The buck stops at the bottom line, and people cannot be defined by their worldly goods.
To get back to a discussion JJ and I had, cooperation is harder to achieve than competition in daily living. In human relations babies are not good examples. We have to teach them that grabbing someone's bunny can get you clobbered, and besides "it's not nice." Acceptable manners are a monkey see, monkey do proposition. But when it comes time to think about the big enchilada, most of us erupt. Who is anyone to tell me what I think about Roe vs Wade, especially any man? You want illegal immigrants to come in and take my job, whether I'd like to shove it or not? Do you think I'm going to let any skirt (notice the subdued language) tell me how to spend my money, because all women want you for is a meal ticket? Just examples of words I've heard.
Where is the joy! Where is the give and take of everyday living! Why can't we get along? They have such a thing as conflict resolution. Anyone want to talk about it?