• comment on a post What's the Sphere Waiting For? over 6 years ago

    The Agonist is a-list and both myself and Stirling have praised Edwards and pointed out he is the best progressive choice (not the most progressive, but the most progressive who is in the running).

    As for other blogs, I'm rather disappointed as well.  We're getting the candidate we asked for, begged for, and we're not supporting him.

    Gonna get the candidate we deserve, then.

  • comment on a post Shrum on Edwards over 7 years ago

    Anyone who takes Shrum's word on anything is an idiot.  The man is "insder" personified, and the biggest loser in politics.  If Shrum thinks a candidate is good, run the other way.  If Shrum advises you to do X, do the opposite.

    As for Edwards vs. Obama, which is what people in this thread want to talk about, Edwards has been leading this last year, and Obama hasn't.  Edwards rejected the War on Terror frame, put together a healthcare plan that would actually be universal and has fought the war.  Obama has not lead the fight against the war, his foreign policy speech is a piece of establishment bullshit, and his healthcare plan wouldn't actually cover everyone.

    Vote Obama if you want - but he's telling you who he is right now - not 4 years ago - and you aren't listening to him.


    As for Edwards, if he's listening to the netroots that's a good thing, not a bad thing.  Tell me who a man listens to, and I'll tell you what he's going to do.  When he listened to assholes and losers like Shrum he voted for the war. When he started listening to his wife and to the netroots he started coming out against the war on terror.  Meanwhile Obama has made it very clear that he has little respect for the netroots.

    Great - I hope you people choose your spouses better than you choose your candidates - choose the one with the "integrity" to disrespect you and not listen to you rather than the one that does listen to you and acts on the same beliefs you have.

  • comment on a post Trade Update over 7 years ago

    Side letters aren't enforceable.  Reopen the agreements, or let them die.

  • comment on a post Supporting Progressive Blogs over 7 years ago

    Yup, blogads are way down.  Yup, you get less blogging if people are being paid peanuts for it, because they have to spend lots of time doing other things. It really does lead to less support.  At some point some of us may decide that McD's (or more likely, the corps) are calling.  Maybe that's as it should be, maybe blogging is really for the 3 biggest blogs per niche, and everyone else should just treat it as a hobby.

    Maybe, dunno.  Probably not for me to say, since I'm kind of self-interested.

    But at the end of the day, ya get the media you're willing to pay for; at the end of the day, this isn't sustainable - people eventually decide that Kraft dinner ain't cuttin'it; that maybe they should get some health insurance, or that maybe they want kids or a spouse who doesn't have to sacrifice for the "cause".

    Or maybe not.  Do we really need any other blogs taht are updated multiple times a day besides Kos and Huffington Post?

    Perhaps not.

  • The bottom line is real simple, and Chris has nailed it - finding people who can write a lot of good posts consistently for peanuts is a problem.  It's just brutally hard to find front-pagers.  Frankly, when I tell people whose writing I really like "post more, and tell me, and I'll front page it" most of the time I get "I'm too busy" or if they do post, they don't post very much.

    I don't write as much as Chris, but I've calculated what I write in a year, and it's on the order of 250K words or more.  That's 4 or so freaking books worth.  I don't even want to think about what the cents/word or hourly rate work out to, but let's just say if I'd taken all the time I'd put into blogging and I'd worked at McD's, I'd be tens of thosands of dollars ahead.

    So - my position on diversity is simple: if you're a good writer who'll produce and writes material that fits my blog, I don't care if you're white, black, latino, indian, zebra striped, male, female, bi, tri or whatever.  It's a complete non-issue.

  • comment on a post The Establishment Challenges the Status Quo over 7 years ago

    Hate to disagree Matt, but the way lobbying in the US is currently done is bad, very bad.  Sure, theoretically, lobbying doesn't have to be evil, but we long ago passed the point where the most powerful lobbies weren't almost all forces for, frankly, evil.

  • Good of you to want to set up temporary permanent bases in a country whose population doesn't want you there.

    You guys wonder why the US's reputation is in the toilet?

    When even Democrats think they have the right to keep troops in countries over the will of the population?

    Who do you think you are?  Athens?  "The Powerful do as they will, the weak suffer as they must?"

    One day you will be weak, bank on it.

    And people will remember that as the American century was setting, your policy was that you'd do what you liked, whether populations liked it or not.

  • You remember Iraq before Americans were there?

    Right, now look at Iraq after Americans are there.

    Now, graph refugees over time, starting with invasion.  See a trend?

    Next, graph deaths over time, starting a week from the end of the invasion.  See another trend?

    Next, check polls asking Iraqis if they think US troops are making things worse or better.

    Then, check polls seeing if Iraqis want US troops to leave?

    Then ask yourself why you're still there, and why it is you think you have the right to occupy a country whose population wants you to leave, after you invaded in an illegal war sold based on lies?

  • comment on a post The Obama Plan: Residual Troops in Iraq over 7 years ago

    The number one way you learn who someone is is by seeing who they surround themselves with.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.  Powers is only one data point, but she is a data point.

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    Tell me who a person's friends are, and I will tell you who that person is.

  • on a comment on April MyDD Straw Poll over 7 years ago

    He does, however, imo, show more foreign affairs savvy that either Obama or Edwards.

  • on a comment on CWA's Laura Unger Responds over 7 years ago

    Matt pretty much did.  The telecoms have a proven record of taking money to provide broadband then not providing it and pocketing said money.  If you're going to pay for broadband, you might as well pay someone who will actually light up the fibre.

  • Stoller does support universal access for all.  As do I.  We don't want it done by Verizon.  They aren't a reliable partner and frankly, the telecoms are an oligopoly that needs to be busted up again or brought under proper government control.  

    But whoever does the build out, it'll need workers.

    In the meantime, the net neutrality folks aren't going to be your allies if you want to go to bat for Verizon gutting net neutrality (your "position paper" doesn't matter if your lobbyists are supporting the other side.  Period.)  Your choice.  Stoller has spent a lot of time and effort being good to Labor when very few bloggers are, but feel free to spit in his face - it's always useful to know where various parties stand, and you're making it real clear.

  • Should such a list exist at all?  What I find strange is the acceptance of its existence.  No one should be on that list unless they've been convicted of a crime.  Last time I checked no one was supposed to be punished or have any rights removed until they'd faced a jury of their peers.

    Ah, such quaint ideas.

  • Because those nuns on the no-fly list dind't make it clear enough it was a political list, not a security list.  Not that such a list should exist at all, given that it's punishment without a trial.  


Advertise Blogads