Markos Moulitzas-Zuniga

To pick up on a theme I alluded to last time, let's start with an excerpt from Part 2.

But perhaps the trickiest aspect to prove out of all of the aspects listed up there is “reasonable fear.” American legal requirements are fraught with these ideas and concepts of what a “reasonable” person would do and feel. The reasonable person standard has evolved over time from being a reasonable white male standard to being a more inclusive reasonable American citizen standard. Historically, the reasonable man standard excluded all women and males of color for a very long time. It excluded people with mental disabilities and children. As the needs and the values of each of these groups integrated into the American social fabric, the concept of what is reasonable to an American citizen has changed slightly. Plus, it’s a bit fearful for any marginalized group to realize that mainstream society — the society that feels almost at home when it’s excluding or ridiculing someone on the margins of opportunity — considers itself a beacon of reasonable progress.

Before I go any further, allow me to share the source of the series title because its implications bothered me then. They still bother me now.

Remember this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3RjiVcIlhY

In the first few seconds, Richards tells African-American hecklers that 50 years ago, he and others would have them upside down with a f**king fork up their asses. And the audience laughs, howls, and cheers -- the same audience that files out of the club moments later when he starts calling the hecklers niggers.

In recommending legal remedies, you may note that I said a blogger has the building blocks of a case if they receive a bothersome threat. I felt reluctant to say that bloggers have absolute awesome odds of winning every legal case ever because each legal provision has its elements. If those elements are not satisfied, then the chances of prevailing in court (or even getting to court) are slim.

Let's take the provisions of cyberstalking as an example. To successfully bring a cyberstalking suit, the following must be proven:

(1) the defendant intentionally used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) the defendant engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear of death of, or serious bodily injury to, herself, her spouse or intimate partner, or a member of her immediate family; and

(3) the defendant’s course of conduct actually placed the victim in reasonable fear of death of, or serious bodily injury to, herself.

Now, if I'm learning my lawyering skills properly, it's our job to make sure we can prove every single facet of those elements true for the satisfaction of the court. We have to break down each element into its component parts and work on resolving the issues. So, for the first element, there are three things that we must find to satisfy it -- that the defendant in the case did the alleged behavior, that the behavior committed was intentionally done, and that the method used for doing it was "mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce." If it can be established that someone else used the defendant's computer to send the threatening message, there'd be a problem. If it could be established somehow that the defendant did not intend to use the device on which they sent the offending message, there'd be a problem. (And trust me, there are legal requirements for intent that sometimes defy common sense, and a good defense lawyer bills you highly to find them and to use them.) If the offending message was somehow not sent on the methods listed, there'd be a problem. So lawyers comb through each element, looking through little loopholes like those to worm through victories for clients on either side of the "v." in a case. It is not easy, and television makes it look easy, though the courtroom speeches and magical eloquence of actors inspire quite a few litigators, I'm sure.

So I guess you all have heard about the Kathy Sierra situation and the public outcry for ending online abuse because of her case, right? If not, take a look at Sierra's account and the horribly misogynistic threats left by anonymous and psuedonymous commenters and the resulting effects on her ability to blog and on her safety. Read BlogHer's response concerning hate speech and misogyny on the internet. Finally, check out this BBC article about the whole Sierra controversy and some brief remarks at Zuky concerning online abuse. (Hat tips to Carmen (via e-mail) and Kai for the information.)

I'm trying to fight my inclination to spiral all over the place with this entry; there are so many associations running through my mind. My mind enjoys weaving fragile patterns of analysis together, either with rope, with wire, or with webbing. But in doing such connections, sometimes I can lose a point or make too many of them at once. Bear with my mind and its impulsive blossoms of insight, please. This post has ruminated in my head for more than a day now. Though I'm writing in the evening currently, I don't expect to post until I've had a full night's sleep (or more) and time to review my writing.

I am thisclose on getting all ghetto on your ass. I want you to stop and I want you to stop now.

I was born in East Harlem and raised in Puerto Rico. Before being a black woman, I have the qualitative Puerto Rican come before it. I don't pick or choose sides when it comes to my ethnicity or my race most of the time --unless you are Alberto Gonzales or Condoleeza Rice.

Right now, I am thisclose to choosing.

Which is why, as much as I have reasons to smack Markos upside the head for the kind of very public fall out he and I have had, I will get all ghetto on anybody's ass who tries to use my name to discredit him.

Do you get that?

I don't give a shit whether you are black or white. What I give a shit about is your true commitment to progressive political action.

What are you going to do to move forward a progressive agenda that will help everybody in this country equally?

Puertorriqueña I am siempre. I am black because I come from slavery; but my mother, who's white skin and green eyes I have taken in with love since the day I was born, comes from the Spaniard equivalent of white niggers. My family were both slaves and indentured servants and I was raised to never forget that.

The father of my children is as white as he can be through his Irish and Polish ascendancies. I have one child who is dark skinned and another one who is white. They both could pass as non-latinos and non-black if we were those kind of people.

Last, but not least, I happen to have blogs where the majority of the posters are white. It's not what I intended at all, but that's what it is. At least here at culturekitchen I have women on the front page. At the The Daily Gotham? It's all white men.

Are you going to call me a racist if the majority of people who have turned down my invitations to post on these sites are black americans and latinos?

Let this be a warning to not just to you, the person who has prompted me to write this post, but to all who use the services of this site.

Do not take my name or the name of any of my blogs in vain for any of your petty vendettas.

! ! ! !

Today, Markos Moulitsas, is the doctrinaire leftist publisher of the DailyKos “progressive” anti-war blog, railing against the moderation of candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Harold Ford. But in the 1980’s, Mr. Moulitsas was an unabashed Reagan Democrat, even working as a campaign aid to George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Presidential election. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.wallace-wells.html http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/01/markos-was-republican-states...

Last year, in a piece Markos wrote for the Cato (libertarian) Institute, Markos acknowledged that the spent the 1980's as a Reagan Republican. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/the-case-for-the...
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/01/yes-progessive-markos-of-dai...

How did Markos achieve this stunning metamorphosis in just a few short years? Actually, nobody knows and Markos isn’t telling. He has told interviewers, improbably, that he last voted for the Republicans in 1992, because he suddenly realized that they didn’t support “states rights” as strongly as he would have liked. (See articles above.)

Once again, I find myself marveling at the ability of the right to repeat the same talking points in every media channel known to man. What we're presently seeing is a repeat of the practice of swiftboating, which I'd define as the rendering unacceptable of any serious challenge to rightist power by a concerted mud-slinging campaign. It's been done before, for example, to Michael Moore, derided as a 'radical' for accurately pointing out the Bush administration's failures in confronting terrorism, and that the Iraq war was based on lies; to Richard Clarke, a dedicated civil servant and counter-terrorism expert in four administrations, who morphed into a greedy hack interested only in notoriety and book sales; to Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, over his exposé of the inner workings of the Bush administration; and most consequentially, to John Kerry, who was turned in a matter of weeks from a war hero into a craven traitor. There are more examples, of course, including attempts that failed, such as the one on Eliot Spitzer.

Today, a similar effort is directed at the most powerful and consequential challenge to the right to emerge in decades: the Progressive blogosphere.

This is the post formerly known as : Jerome, honey, do you really want to be called "Baby Turdblossom"? Instead become the next Chuck DeFeo. It was edited for the sake of brevity.

[via American Prospect Online - Hard Sell]:

“Absent Gore, the person people favor is Feingold,” explained Kenneth Bernstein, a.k.a. TeacherKen, a white-bearded social studies instructor at the Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt, Md., who also advises congressional candidates on education policy and spoke at the conference. On Sunday morning, Bernstein gathered for a final coffee with MyLeftWing’s Maryscott O’Connor and NYU cultural anthropology professor Jeffrey Feldman, who writes a column he calls Frameshop. The consensus at the table was that Warner had come off all wrong, from his extravagant party to his slick campaign video to his speech, which focused too much on autobiography and not enough on acknowledging the importance of the netroots -- a mistake Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid did not make in his Saturday night address, which heaped praise on the bloggers and their new medium.

[...]

all the griping was clearly having an impact on Warner's internet strategist Jerome Armstrong by Sunday morning, who dismissed the snipers as "ideological" and "pretty left wing."

"It wasn't going to be a love-in to begin with,"Armstrong sighed as the final brunch session of the conference wound down. "This was a great opportunity for bloggers to meet Warner. But also, the whole blogosphere and broader press was focused on this event. Coming here was a no-brainer."

I find it very interesting that you co-authored a book that focuses in part on the scourge of politicals consultants while becoming a political consultant (actually, Online Strategy Director, correct?) for presidential hopeful, Mark Warner. I honestly cannot wrap my head around that one yet.

What I find more fascinating is the way you and your crew at MyDD.com have been streering the blog towards proving : (1) You represent a monolithic constituency called "the Netroots(tm)"; (2) Because you represent this constituency, said Netroots is neither ideological nor left-wing.

Which is why when I coincidentally read the following Karl Rove quote after reading your abovementioned, I just felt sick to my stomach.