to remember. We definitely should not just be quiet either—that will only get us more ignored and out of the way of sweeping all to the conservatives. How can so many people think abandoning all the Democratic principles talked about above is the right thing? Are they all so “dogwhistled” by the D behind the name that they tell themselves publicly touting the wrong values is just a head fake?

I’ve had a conversation that went like this:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/08/b…

(via the Make Them Accountable e-mail newsletter)

Seriously, how much of this do you remember with Kerry?

BTW, thrilled to see the book format for PB 2.0. Excellent work.

P.S. Didn’t have to time to read it all—is Susie’s stuff there too? And what about pb and j 2.0?

(which is the name of a newspaper in DiscWorld, a fantasy….)

It turns out that most people don’t care about the truth, think that what “everybody knows” is the truth, and really want to read stories about naughty vegetables shaped like the zuchinni of chastisement.

I hate to think that circulation-building demands truthiness. That would be bad.

But it’s also true that if you don’t get read, there’s no point writing anything, including the truth.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

If I missed something, ping me.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

This reminds me of a situation we have here in Zone 5b. A big mill will pollute the countryside for years (heavy metals, leachate, name it) and then the corporation will shut it down, leaving all the toxicity to be dealt with by the locals, if at all. They “move on.”

That seems to be the attitude to our discourse as well; the Casey fauxtrage is an example. If I understand the issue correctly, Casey is being granted a speaking slot entirely to rectify a manufactured and completely false story. That’s about as toxic a discourse as you can get.

It’s as if you have to buy into and believe a list of lies to get admitted to the inner sanctum — lies which can be shown to be lies through a minimal examination of the public record, and yet which are endlessly repeated by our famously free press.

[pounds head on desk]

What to do? And how to get people to read and participate when it is being done?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

… being boldy shrill, not sacrificing truth in order to uphold some oppressive notion of what constitutes “civility.”

Consider that one doesn’t discuss religion or politics in polite company. Is it any wonder that religion and politics are so routinely fucked up?

It’s as if you have to buy into and believe a list of lies to get admitted to the inner sanctum — lies which can be shown to be lies through a minimal examination of the public record, and yet which are endlessly repeated by our famously free press.

that is the most perfect description of the Versailles Villagers I have ever seen, and increasingly true of certain parts of netroots.

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/02/why…

I had hoped that the emerging Democratic majority and burgeoning netroots were going to be different. I’m an idiot.

Not within the blogosphere, but without. I’ve talked to a number of people, mostly older women, who see the media in a whole new light after the way Clinton was treated. Suddenly people they liked and trusted in the news, they don’t like and trust anymore. It goes beyond simply seeing the bias in opinion, but to questioning the accuracy of the reporting. Many of them participated in one way or another in the campaign or watched it way more closely than they usually do. So they know that a lot of what was reported was untrue. That’s a key thing to get people to see. And many people saw clearly this election. That so many people who used to see clearly decided to put on blinders remains depressing, but at least there is some good news out of this disaster.

Sure, we got the same result we got in earlier elections. But some previously closed eyes were opened and that’s an important thing to also remember.

I still think the greatest thing Hillary Clinton brought to the table - and what made her truly dangerous to the Village no matter her centrist policies - is the ability to get a lot of Americans to ignore the media. She did better as the campaign went on even as the media got worse and worse (which, of course, is one of the reasons why they hate her).

Der dolchstosslegende, to cite an example from another toxic system of discourse.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

One is the truth (v. truthiness) that is so important. If we are blog-reporters, op-ed contributors, etc., truth counts all the same.

The other is what we want our Presidential (almost)nominees (both sides) to be like. What’s our role encouraging/suggesting/critiquing that?
It may vary if we are being reporters or doing an op-ed or an emotional rant, etc. (maybe we should have section headings?)

As far as both of these ideas, truth and almost-nominee character, we can’t just ignore some things, primarily the existence of conservative ideas. Many progressives I know want to ignore them in Obama—and in McCain; in short, avoid discussing them all together. I seriously think that we must acknowledge both bad behavior—and good—by Obama on an on-going basis (including reevaluations of his past behavior); and both good behavior—and bad—by McCain, including his policies and his placement in the race. We should reward good behavior by anyone—party invariance (why don’t we call it issues/values invariance again?) And we should be able to realistically discuss the horse race without being required to constantly restate our true progressive credentials and/or ideals. First off, you can’t require people you talk to to pledge their votes to Obama or you won’t even talk to them. Secondly, how can liberals win if they are not even willing to look realistically at the race? I got fooled by what happened with Kerry, thought he was going to win, think he did win (Ohio people went to jail for vote fraud) but not by enough to prevent a vote steal throwing the election to Bush. I was studying the race and I didn’t see it coming, couldn’t understand why more people didn’t vote for the experienced Kerry who had many good ideas. So I am keeping my eyes especially open this time around, looking at and listening to many groups of people, reading the polls, etc. I have found that many of my progressive friends and family are unwilling to discuss the race—with anyone—even though they freely admit stats and analysis are available—they “just don’t want to hear it.” How can you win races with this attitude?

Yes, I find it remarkable and encouraging that Hillary won a majority of Democratic votes in the face of our famously free press proclaiming that the race was over starting in February, and the bloggers doing their little bit by yammering WWTSBQ,

I can’t remember which Clinton advisor said it, but at some point, post-Penn, the campaign realized that the more the press slammed her, the better she did.

What a surprise… There must be a special kind of brain damage in the Beltway class of consultants, for them to be surprised by this. Or perhaps it’s a failure of perception, or of interest.

OK, then, 18 million… That should be a PB 2.0 audience. How do we reach them??

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Thanks very much for hosting! And your nice intro and links!

The American public rejected the Village narrative about non-partisanship and voted out a crapload (I think that is the correct unit of measure) of Republicans.

In 2008, Americans were told every which way that Hillary was unworthy, and yet by the millions they voted against the grain of the programming.

I’ve lost faith in a lot of things in recent years, but after they were badly snookered by the Saddam + 9/11 3-card monte game, the American public showed some independence and smarts it generally isn’t given credit for.

After quoting Digby and Stoller, this:

what they identify with is authoritarianism. Absolutely anything is OK for a Republican, as long as he affects the role of the big, strong, moralizing daddy.

It seems that the authoritarian impulse is party invariant.

If you’re looking for “the real enemy,” that seems like a good place to start.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

it generally isn’t given credit for.”

Very true.

That’s one way to reach the 18 million, they are focused on some basic things about politics and let the rest go by as noise?

I think that may be a little bit too simple an explanation for what’s been going on here.

The O isn’t really anyone’s archetype of a big, strong moralizing Daddy. He’s a distant idealized figure who pretty much ignores his most fervent disciples, the absent father rather than the strong guiding hand, no?

And it seems to me there’s a whole raft of prominent PB1 voices, Example A being Josh Marshall, who actually Know Better but have let themselves get sucked into something they don’t have the emotional ability to get out of.

Then there are others who appear, at least to me, to be purely, coldly, cynically calculating. I think there’s certainly a wide streak of authoritarianism in the latter, but not so much in the former. (just plain being a prick isn’t the same as being authoritarian).

I think the former are, for lack of a better term, addictive personalities. They get that first big rush of excitement and hopey-changey about a truly historic possibility and quickly get so hooked, they can’t let go. If you stop and think for a minute, it’s acutely uncomfortable. Nope! Can’t do that again!

So PB2 what? I dunno. It’s hard to see through the miasma of our current political O environment to the other side, or even if there is one. The O phenomenon has served to sort us out quite a bit, and without it, we might not even be seeing so clearly the need for a PB2. But once O passes, whether it’s in November or four or eight years from November, the intensity of focus and shared perspective will, seems to me, inevitably fracture.

1. “The absent father”… Oh, man, there’s a whole book in that one.

2. The key point being:

the intensity of focus and shared perspective will, seems to me, inevitably fracture.

Do it now before our systems adjust to the new levels of toxicity?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Exactly the same thing happened when the Republicans were impeaching Clinton — his polling was never higher.

We want them reading us. How? Actually, I know the answer: Pictures of naughty vegetables.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Butt Krakatoa is a sure winner.

principles? A la the Dogme indie movie movement of the 90s? They really did preach dogma and it was more a marketing stunt than anything, but the principles were interesting and gave people a place to start talking about movies and moviemaking beyond the usual, “Who’s your agent?” and “Did you get a deal from New Line?” crap you usually heard.

Something beyond, “Don’t be a dick,” and more than a issues or tactics? Fundamentals. The thing that separates Beowulf from Grendel sorts of things?

… why not?

UPDATE Actually, I think what we want is naughty vegetables that also look like butt cracks.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

We’re still in a blue-sky mode here, so any kind of structure, manifesto, etc. that would be effective and ethical is open for consideration.

There’s a point where blue-skying has to stop and getting it done has to start?

No?

Is it time to stop muttering over the plan and start building the barn?

For instance, you make a good point about inconvenient truth and civility. But the latter doesn’t necessarily preclude the former, just as bluntness doesn’t always equal honesty. Sometimes bluntness is just cover for a jerk.

I wodner if procedurals would be more helpful as just a way to get started.

We’re ruminating, tossing around various kinds of notions about what went wrong and what might help make things go right.

Doesn’t seem to me that we know yet whether what we need is a barn, a boathouse, or a series of tract homes, teepees, or trailers. Not quite ready to build yet, IMHO.

Procedurals? Please elaborate.

Picking up from Ohio’s comment, what specific proposals have been tossed around in these discussions that ought to be parts of a candidate solution.

The most concrete one that I recall is something akin to a webring or “alliance,” a confederation of blogs with various voices but some common set of principles.

This would require a form of governance, to decide who’s in, who’s out, etc.

our particular blog coalition (CW) or the entire extended formerly pb 1.0 blogosphere?

at various points but I’m not sure they were all immediately galvinizing ideas…

Are you looking for a catalyst for right now?

Just looking to see what specifics might be meaningful building blocks toward something real.

Could be useful for the next discussion to, perhaps, focus on the concrete ideas at hand.

Updated Platform (by all, written up by TP)

1. Ethical blogger code
2. More infrastructure for networking
3. Long term goals and vision
4. Stated shared principles
5. Impartially structured critique of media
6. Rigorous clear-eyed assessments of candidates and their actions
7. Discussions of what justice, fairness, etc. are
8. Discussions of what pragmatic, modern day politics can do and should not do about justice, fairness, etc.
9. Knowledgeable and conscientious editors/arbiters who can and will point out which people know what they’re talking about and which ones have no clue
10. System for tags on the above ideas across blogs and websites

So here are a few of the questions and ideas for PB 2.0 systems people came up with:

1. How best can PB 2.0 protect itself from assault by partisans and corporate astroturfing disinformation campaigns? Assuming those are different things. [Hat tip: Goldberry]

2. Should PB 2.0 be a legal entity along the lines of CPB? [Hat tip: Goldberry] Or — thinking outside the box here — along the lines of a megachurch?

3. Should PB 2.0 have a business model? Servers cost money. Ads? Subscriptions? Passing the hat? [Hat tip: TnJen]

4. How do we flatten the power curve? Typically for the Internet, as PB 1.0 shook out, there were a very, very few high traffic blogs, with a steep shoulder of lower traffic blogs, and then a “long tail” of very low traffic blogs. Not only are the few high traffic blogs more vulnerable to assault by corporate and partisan forces (assuming those to be different) than a more evenly balanced system would be, having an “A,”- “B”-, and “The Rest” List smacks altogether too much of the two-tier, authoritarian model so prevalent elsewhere under the Conservative ascendancy. [Hat tip: Lambert and FrenchDoc]

5. How do we create a system where seeking truth, and not selling truthiness, is the highest value? [Hat tip: BTD and VastLeft]

6. How can PB 2.0 create face-to-face activism, “instead of this Intertubes stuff”? [Big tip of the ol’ chapeau to Bruce Dixon; our problems are not, primarily, technical in nature!]

7. Is AA a good organizational model? [Hat tip: Caro] Like old school bloggers, not only is AA anonymous (“spiritual foundation of our tradtions”) it hasn’t been captured by partisans or corporations. Indeed, AA might be said to be the epitome of the decentralized and mutually accountable network. [Hat tip: FrencDoc]

8. Should PB 2.0 be “party invariant”? [Hat tip: gqmartinez] Strange bedfellows are bad why?]

9. Is ruthless moderation necessary? [Hat tip: Nadal]

10. Do we need to make shared principles and purposes explicit? [Hat tip: Truth Partisan]

NOTE * Of course, YMMV by individual bloggers; some remained intact, while others totally lost it. I’m talking about PB 1.0 as a system, as a network of interconnected blogs. Taken as a system, the discourse produced by PB 1.0 was toxic.

UPDATE I forgot to say that one way to connect te “intertubes” with “face-to-face” is through project software, especially if the project teams are not geographically dispersed.

* Promotion of intellectual tools that do not reproduce conservative / libertarian / media-favored frames by bringing back the social (as opposed to the individual / judgmental frameworks)
* Promotion of redistribution of rights, opportunities and resources
* Promotion of the ways in which current institutions can be reformed to create a more just society (again, where rights, opportunities and resources are more equally redistributed… we may be equal in terms of rights under the law, but in the absence of equal opportunities and resources, it’s meaningless) here and globally (World Bank, IMF, WTO)

Our goal: a more just society here and globally. Reducing /eliminating structural violence. Avoid symbolic violence (the lowest form of which is the use of demeaning nicknames).

The challenge is to find the structure to promote this far and wide.

I can also see the fact that PB2.0 is already name is the teepee.

We are the teepee we’ve been waiting for.

Heh.

Procedurals—-I mean something such as presenting an opposing argument. Yeah, I know, lame, but it’s a place to start. Anyway, let’s say you blog on why we should all be using horses instead of cars. You make a good argument and I’m ready to toss out the keys and get a new saddle for Fury the non-Unity Pony.

But in the spirit of eating our own dogfood (dangerous thing to mention if ponies are around), you argue against yourself in a Flip Side blog. The trick is that your argument shouldn’t be RW talking points BS, but another progressive view that simple disagrees. It should be substantive. The key here is to try another way of looking at the issues or methods as well as an honest and vigorous examination.

Yes, it puts the onus on bloggers, many of whom are already researching their little hearts out. So how about we tagteam? We could call it Progressive Thunderdome.

UPDATE: Another procedural would be AWA—-Axing With Alternative. Like my Progressive Thunderdome (“Two bloggers go in; one comes out to get some coffee because the conversation is so interesting and she wants to keep up”) idea. Say someone hates it. Okay, then speak up an offer your procedural. This isn’t about being lame, this is about finding what will work.

I see from various buttons that I could digg this post, google this post, yahoo this post, etc. What I don’t see (maybe I’m missing it) is a link to email this post to a friend. A lot of people don’t spend all that much time on-line, especially older folks. What almost everyone does, however, is read email (and links contained in email). Hell, until her stroke, even my grandmother had email. And, yes, I know that it’s not that hard to download a link to your email and send it. I also know I’m more likely to email an article with one of those nice little links. Because I don’t have to go to my mail program to do it or open up my webmail in another window.

And my guess is that folks who come here or to other blogs to read something and then like what they read are more likely to come back, even if they don’t regularly read blogs. Then they use your links and slowly uncover the blog world.

Why does this site crash my IE browser? It’s done it almost all day today and most of yesterday. Every once in awhile it lets me on, but mostly I get an error message (and yes I know IE sucks).

There is one other extended list, of questions pb 2.0 (and we) need to answer from the 4th philosophical pb 2.0—do you want that with all its extended philosophical questions (which make it better but quite long) or a shortened version?

in the pb 2.0 sessions, but all the entire pb 2.0’s can be read here:

Progressive Blogosphere 2.0 — The Book

but then there really would have to be some pretty concrete standards for inclusion. So which?

Based on the whole experience of the last six months, I’d have to say that criterion number one would have to be pretty strict moderation of comments. Corrente’s and others’ newer members are here because we got sand-blasted out of other blogs by the screeching hordes far more than because we couldn’t tolerate the writing of the front-pagers.

As I said somewhere on another thread I’ve lost track of, there were very few blogs that officially purged commenters who were insufficiently O-worshiping, but all the O-blogs I’m aware of just let their commenters run wild and chase the non-conformists out that way.

Screeching and flaming will always chase out more thoughtful voices. There’s no other way to stop that except by sometimes fairly heavy-handed comment moderation. A *short* (cough) waiting time after registration and before commenting is permitted is also helpful in stalling sudden raiders who flood in following an outraged link somewhere.

How members of the Webring would be chosen beyond that is, er, beyond me. The best one could do about FP content, I think, would be some sort of pledge about pretty subjective things, like insulting language or a respect for facts or attributing motives without qualifying, a modicum of linky goodness for assertions of fact, yada, yada.

Hard enough to come up with those standards, but then what happens if a blog ring member violates them repeatedly and egregiously? Who decides? Who unlinks them?

IOW, is there any way at all to do this without some kind of governing body and the resultant mess that would forever entail?

I need to check out for a while, but I’ll come back in later.

My kick-off topic probably wasn’t the ideal one to propel us toward an action plan, but I’ve felt the weight from within and without to STFU about the real world reasons for why we feel a new PB is needed, and I don’t want to see that reality taken off the table.

It’s been a depressing week in the leftysphere, seeing bloggers whom I really respect doing a little kabuki dance of pretending that this is an ordinary Democrat vs. Republican election, and pumping up absurd narratives about John McCain’s ads when the simple reality of his record is plenty damning enough. Covering up for Obama’s failings offers us little hope of influencing him in the few remaining months when maybe we could.

As I’ve observed before, it was much easier for us to have solidarity against so pernicious a force as Bush. The bar was set so low for Obama — be more progressive than the famously centrist Hillary Clinton, and he has proven so extraordinarily unwilling or unable to meet that bar, and the leftysphere has been so limited in its interest in doing something about it, that we’re en route to four to eight years of nowhere near good enough for the crises we’re facing.

I surely wish for a new PB, but it’s hard sometimes to be future oriented when watching a train wreck play out before your eyes.

Perhaps there is someone among you with a captivating vision of the future which can energize us for the long haul — I see seeds of that in the suggestions to date. If you find such a direction, I’ll be there rowing along with you!

Can you give more detail?

IIRC, their manifesto was concerned with method rather than principle (though principled behavior was an outcome of the method).

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm

… because it’s testable.

Strict moderation is a key, but that can only be built on a foundation of community action, since otherwise there aren’t enough hours in the day.

And the moderation decisions are made by, well, an authority figure, and the bottom line there is basically “I’ve seen it all before.”

Whereas, if principles — “in every post, you have to present a short rebuttal of your own argument, with at least one link” — are in play, they are easily verifiable by anyone.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I’m betting it’s a remnant of the SiteMeter fiasco.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It’s the day after the trainwreck.

What systems would you want in place then?

That’s the system we want to put in place now.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

“…in every post, you have to present a short rebuttal of your own argument, with at least one link” — are in play, they are easily verifiable by anyone.”

Kewl, I love it, but maybe people could partner up? Having to present the opposite argument is an excellent idea but time-consuming to do well. Could people work in partnerships?

With the Dogme Manifesto?

“It’s the day after the trainwreck.
What systems would you want in place then?
That’s the system we want to put in place now.”

Great idea. (Although those other little trains are really still out there crossing our tracks and needing to be dealt with…)Sort of a think-tank, in 10 year ideal.

One thing I have been thinking about is how to affect matters on a very small scale, local level — which is where all the toxic waste is left after the corps “move on.”

We can’t raise enough money to affect a national or even a state race. But we could affect a local race — a zoning commission, or a school board.

I would like to see if PB 2.0 can provide a forum or ability to connect local effort all around the country by enabling people to tell their stories (a new “narrative”) and give support to each other.

I agree with Ohio and the others that some sort of corporate entity (“open….” something-or-other) is needed as an umbrella, since money is going to be raised and handled (even if only on the “beer budget” level). But it’s also got to be decentralized. No board of directors or anything like that. Maybe the “procedural” idea could be the test here?

I think that galvanization will come soon enough when (a) localities realize they have shared problems and (b) the power structures react and the reaction goes up the chain.

I don’t know whether this vision is possible. Someone with more experience than me?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Because I think she would have examples of this sort of thing.

We need to avoid centralized structures to resist attack.

I think federated blogs with (a) shared revenue raising/advertising (I don’t mind if there’s a “progressive” tax, as long as I can buy my beer ;-) (b) shared content in the form of a widget that (i) has a headline feed and (ii) some form of alert ystem, (c) “procedural” principles.

Perhaps it could be a franchise type operation? Ohio? You still here?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Then again, where some might think “time consuming,” others might think that the effort put in to stating a position with which you do not agree is worth the investment.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Here’s is the vow of chastity.

The nice thing about it is that it’s verifiable, or, as Ohio would have it, “procedural.” (Some of it could even be enforced by software. For example, all posts must have at least 500 words. If we wanted to avoid snarky one-shots, for example.)

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Nice piece, VasLeft. Good use of links.

I don’t think my blog, Remain Calm, delves into the type of behavior you reject, but I’d be happy if you pointed out any failings.

I think elites are alright, maybe I am one. I’ve had enough of 7 years of Joe Schmoe Presidents. Certain of the President’s bad decisions, regardless of the putative inputs of comic-book darklords like Cheney and Big Oil, must be laid directly at the feet of an incompetent man.

Obama is certainly the lesser of two evils.

It’s also strange that you are complaining about his shifts to the right, while the right is suggesting he’s really a closet marxist, linking him to Chicago’s now-defunct New Party, Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, and, of course, community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Neither man is me,
and will not meet my expectations,
but one man favors one war,
while the other favors three.

1. “How should we post?” — Dogme (the procedural)

2. “Why should we post?” — Principles, “we believe”, “progressive”

3. “Where should we post?” — decentralized structure

4. “Who should post?” — those who adhere to the dogme*

5. “What should we post?” — truthful narrative

Organizational: Legal entity; handles money; progressive tax; shared headline and alert system.

Thoughts?

* #2 flows from #1. But #1 is verifiable and #2 is not.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

See http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm for info.

As you’ll see by Dogme’s Vow of Chastity, this effort was about stripping away conventional moviemaking methods in favor of what is near to hand. IOW, take away craft as it blocks authenticity.

The downsides to Dogme is that it is founded on an incorrect principle—-that moviemaking was democratized by technology. Simply not so. The biggest challenge to an indie moviemaker isn’t the technology, it’s access to distribution and time. If you don’t have time to make a movie (and by time, I mean money), you just don’t, regardless of your good intentions or ideas.

On the upside, I think the impulse was genuine: something had gone wrong with cinema and it was time to remove the falsities created by an emphasis on craft and professionalism over, well…everything. Since craft is created by skilled people, by removing them from the set, you also removed their salaries from the budget, theoretically lowering the amount of money required to make a flick. But you also are required to improvise everything on set and that can lead to some amazing experiences.

It can also lead to total crap, which is what most Dogme flicks were. Got Lars von trier a lot of rpess, though, so it achieved its goal. Sigh.

How does this apply to PB2.0? Well, I think maybe we should focus on methods and procedures, and face the barriers to financial self-reliance. Money* and distribution** are major questions. Answering those may shape this PB2.0 of which we type.

*Money being literally, the business of PB2.0. And no, I haven’t figured out how to make money for ya yet, but I’m thinking “the produce that looks like a buttcrack” thing might be lucrative.

**Distribution in this sense meaning not only readership, but commentary and response as evidenced by links to and clicks to.

You write:

It’s also strange that you are complaining about his shifts to the right, while the right is suggesting he’s really a closet marxist, linking him to Chicago’s now-defunct New Party, Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, and, of course, community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Why would this be “strange”? What’s strange about it?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

That’s interesting. Could you elaborate?

Whereas, if principles — “in every post, you have to present a short rebuttal of your own argument, with at least one link” — are in play, they are easily verifiable by anyone.

come on, how many of us are stealing time from work. how much work can you put into comments

I confess I don’t get the PB2.0 series. I mean something really dreadful happened this year, but I am not sure what we can do about it, save try to offer an alternative for them as wants it.

1. Your comment on “Creative Corporation” last week. If we’re going to handle money, even in small quantities, there need to be a legal entity that does it.

2. Keying of the “Vow of Chastity,” the beauty part is that it’s procedural, verifiable, testable.

3. A franchise is a brand (start with Corrente’s) and a set of procedures. Some franchises have procedures for french fries; we have for creating content (the Vow).

4. Franchises part of a chain, get the brand recognition and various centralized services (like te alert/headlines widget, for example).

Like that. Underperforming franchises get kicked out. Performance isn’t by hits, but the vow.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

And the alternative is exactly what we are trying to create.

Face it, the press is failing us at every level. And 18 million people have shown they don’t trust it. Huge opportunity!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But can we call it Dogmeat instead of Dogme?

And I think a #6 would be about commentary—-what it means and how it is handled. I have to think about that some more, though. But response and dialogue is a bedrock of progressivism, ain’t it?

what if a previously trusted PB2.0 blog went on the rails? We saw plenty of that this year. What is the enforcement mechanism? Or is PB2.0 like the French Impressionists? A loose association of like minded bloggers who you recognize when you see it?

Polo shirts too! (Or Ts) to let people know what we’re doing.

Though I’m pleased at the n-i-i-i-c-e Ohio, since at heart I’m an editor/writer and sort of a web developer, and I have the idea that you have a superior business sense to mine (if I were any good at making money, I’d have some).

Moderation is absolutely essential, and leadership as well — the problem comes when you get the few leaders at the top and then the long tail. Then the few go on the teebee (and not always for “bad” reasons) and the rest is history.

Perhaps the answer is some kind of rotation?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Nice to see you!

We can be French Impressionist-like bloggers with deep plum purple shirts…

Totally agree. The link to people who disagree, though…I bet you come across ’em, and even know the good stuff from the bad. So in essence, the link to an opposing argument procedure is asking you to use your expertise to offer your readers and commenters a counterargument that you have selected for them to consider. You are getting your thesis, antithesis, synthesis all in one go.

No honest broker is going to offer a crappy counterargument just for the sake of it. It is, in effect, another way of forcing us all to keep to a truthful narrative.

and the zuchinni of chastisement on the back.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

… be verifiable. There would need to be an inspection mechanism.

But imagine the “opposing view” requirement. Not saying I think it should be in place, truly, just an example.

It’s easy to check that’s being done. It isnt, you take away the franchise.

And it also enforces a certain level of discussion. I mean, can you imagine how WKJM would be, if that had been in place? Or how Atrios would change, for the better I think, if all posts had to be 500 words? (Again, just an example).

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

’Cos they are different…”Moderation rotation” would be excellent and key for retaining people but I think everyone would have to be paid. Setting aside the time to moderate every x weeks would take away the ability to generate income at those times.

… because someone would also be moderating for you. It nets out.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

My attempt.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

opposing view—or that would be included? Say, 100 word rebuttal?

Yeah, if that had been followed, WKJM wouldn’t have had the same problems…

There have certainly been great great posts here by Vast Left and Lambert and French Doc—among others—that were over 500 words.

Just throwing out suggestions to show how it would work. It would take some thought to come up with real principles. In a way, it’s my linky goodness and quotes riff made systematic.

The key point is that compliance is verifiable. That makes it a suitable membership test.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

like Lambert, I’m not sure why it’s strange that there are different perceptions about a politician, especially one like Obama who admits he’s a tabula rasa on which people project ideas onto and that they’ll probably all be disappointed by him. Sorry, typing from my goddam iPhone which is too cool to offer copy/paste, or I’d link to my post “The Four Year Effect” which contains the original quote and my interpretation of it.

Where the heck did you get such an idea, TP? :-)

We could make it so you couldn’t even post a post unless the length was right etc.—things could bounce so you could try again. That would decrease human moderation.

We could also have pro and con bloggers as a team, kind of like bloggingheadstv—in print or I suppose in radio or tv.

What one thing—of all our ideas—could we implement tomorrow? Start testing for pb 2.0?

-Creative Corp is the instrument to handle the business (aka the Beer Money) of Corrente.

-Corrente is the brand that means the Vow of Beer and Honesty.

-Corrente is also the means by which franchise blogs can benefit by association with Corrente—-extended press exposure, widgeting, headlining, etc. Possibly even liability or other business protection underneath the umbrella of the Corrente Creative Corp?

Crap, we need a lawyer to even ask how far we can take the CreatCorp idea. Either way, yes, there’s going to have to be an entity to fondle the money.

And I’m still not seeing how to generate revenue. Can we auction off the hamsters?

(FTR, I am not a lawyer. I am not an accountant.)

We have been governed by the corporate and religious elites for the past 7 years and I, for one, have really had enough of that and Obama does not represent a shift in this.

And they have been VERY successful in passing horrid laws with the complicity of the other chunks of the elite (the Village): the Dems and the MSM.

Obama’s affiliations and acquaintances are his problems and anyone familiar with GOP tactics could see from miles away how they would exploit this. Nothing surprising here.

Some might need it. Others might not.

is a big phallic symbol showing how we fight misogyny!! :-)

Corrente would be like the first and flagship franchisee, I guess.

I can think of the following ways for ALL the network members to make money:

1. Advertisting

2. Donations

3. Self published books

4. Gear, like T-shirt

5. Original works of art

There must be more, too. Consulting services, barter. Like I keep saying, “beer money.” But enough to make a difference in a local race or two or ten.

6. I was thinking of selling “Naming rights” to indivual hamsters, yes. There would be a hamster page, with images of hamsters. Rather like buying a pew in church.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Perhaps we need to over a range of options, here.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

whatever that means!

I can’t help but notice the omnipresence of French references though:

- Versailles Village
- Impressionist bloggers

Certain contexts might involve different formats.

The sites with strong moderation survived the OFB assault, which would be identical in form to any other corporate Astroturfing attack. Strong moderation was the answer at Digby’s, for example. And if you look at Atrios’s numbers, they show a steady downward trend since Feb, though they’re still massive, and I’m betting that’s because Atrios is not moderated.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

For instance:

- quick takes: just a link and a little text as to why people should follow the link

- background pieces

- taking action pieces

- critical analysis pieces

etc.. you get the idea.

… if you’ve got verifiability, then (a) you can decentralize enforcement, because you need less expert judgment, making the network less vulnerable, and (b) it scales — 50 or 5000 sites, it’s possible to devise sampling techniques.

If it’s too vague, you get a group of knowledgeable insiders saying yea or nay, and it doesn’t scale.

As TS Eliot said of free verse: “You can’t play tennis without a net.”

All this might come out in composition of actual procedures of course. And the procedures can be generalized from practices of existing, intact bloggers.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

And I know someone who makes little painted…oh wait, they are guinea pig ornaments.

What was the deal with advertising and not doing it? Was it a freedom/ didn’t believe in it choice?

Exactly what I was going to say!

Author makes a commitment, then lives up to it.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

In fact, if they want to put their ads next to the images of vegetable butt cracks, they can!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

of a set of categories for posts (with criteria) that all writers would agree to follow.

The categories could be

- Type of post (like I listed above)

- Topical (foreign policy, environment, labor, social justice…)

If we had a designer, we could create thumbnails to add to the posts for quick identification.

the ubiquitous Lambert (I hope) and then the Beer Money fund (or what it was called) and then to?

This is a very complex subject, but suffice to say that from being a firm believer in taxonomies and ontologies designed by experts, I have shifted to a belief in bottom up free tagging by users.

Let’s keep it simple.

Also, the document types provide a framework for procedures, but are not the procedures.

We must also keep in mind that for most users, document types are not intuitive. We would need a very few of them, perhaps a maximum of five and better three.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

*i’d* buy the right to name a corrente hamster.

Advertising, if you can identify the user group the franchise (as a whole) could work. With the Creative Corp to handle the business, then there is a clear separation between business and editorial, but there will always be question regarding the influence of advert on editorial. As there should be. But including ad rates and client buys may make that process a little more transparent.

Donations are always iffy. Cheap bastards. I think if we can get any of these other trickles going, donations can be sent to a PAC or local election or effort of the donor’s choice. You know, an adjunct Corrente-branded “donate to these people” might be another good deed to consider.

Then we get into retail. Tie-ins might work. For example, FrenchDoc always cites these great books—-if Corrente handles the link to A