why I've been down
This started as an email and devolved into a response to some blog posts.
It's not just the torturing and the war and the fact that the Democrats won't let organized labor talk to new Congresspeople. It's that people who should be actively working to change the world just don't get it. There was an interesting piece in Sunday's NY Times that looked at bloggers being paid by candidates during the election. Glover, the author, makes this point in an internet follow-up:
"I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article."
So liberal/progressive bloggers across the internet freak the fuck out. The thing is, these guys *DO* think that they are revolutionaries, they just have a very broad view of what can be considered anti-establishment. Sirota's blog post explicitly states:
"Was George McGovern's campaign for President "part of the Establishment?" What about Barry Goldwater's campaign? Was Ned Lamont's? Of course not. Almost every campaign against an incumbent is a challenge to the existing power Establishment. Period."
Here's the problem. [For the record, I drove around all election season with a Lamont bumper-sticker on my car.] Sirota says that he has been opposed to Joe Lieberman for years,
"I've been an opponent of Joe Lieberman since I first started working on Capitol Hill in 1999."
but wouldn't Joe Lieberman say that he himself is, in some way, anti-establishment (ie, the Bush administration)? He said as much during the campaign. It's the same way for these net-roots bloggers. Listen - any candidate who [seriously] runs for election is a part of the "Establishment". That's the Establishment - if you're trying to be a part of it, you cannot be considered "against" it. Ok, maybe that's a worthwhile tactic in your mind, "changing the system from within", but don't try to make it sound revolutionary.
One commenter on Tim Tagaris' blog response to Glover says this:
"Glover might view us as sell-outs, tainted now by the prospect of money and power. But he's dead wrong. We aren't sell outs - we've always wanted to buy in."
By definition, that makes you part of the establishment. More significantly, it also makes you part of that group of people which will not change this country in any meaningful way.
For my next trick in my return to posting, I'll make the case that the receptionist who answers the phones at the company that makes Jose Padilla's restraints is guilty of torture. I'm serious.
It's not just the torturing and the war and the fact that the Democrats won't let organized labor talk to new Congresspeople. It's that people who should be actively working to change the world just don't get it. There was an interesting piece in Sunday's NY Times that looked at bloggers being paid by candidates during the election. Glover, the author, makes this point in an internet follow-up:
"I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article."
So liberal/progressive bloggers across the internet freak the fuck out. The thing is, these guys *DO* think that they are revolutionaries, they just have a very broad view of what can be considered anti-establishment. Sirota's blog post explicitly states:
"Was George McGovern's campaign for President "part of the Establishment?" What about Barry Goldwater's campaign? Was Ned Lamont's? Of course not. Almost every campaign against an incumbent is a challenge to the existing power Establishment. Period."
Here's the problem. [For the record, I drove around all election season with a Lamont bumper-sticker on my car.] Sirota says that he has been opposed to Joe Lieberman for years,
"I've been an opponent of Joe Lieberman since I first started working on Capitol Hill in 1999."
but wouldn't Joe Lieberman say that he himself is, in some way, anti-establishment (ie, the Bush administration)? He said as much during the campaign. It's the same way for these net-roots bloggers. Listen - any candidate who [seriously] runs for election is a part of the "Establishment". That's the Establishment - if you're trying to be a part of it, you cannot be considered "against" it. Ok, maybe that's a worthwhile tactic in your mind, "changing the system from within", but don't try to make it sound revolutionary.
One commenter on Tim Tagaris' blog response to Glover says this:
"Glover might view us as sell-outs, tainted now by the prospect of money and power. But he's dead wrong. We aren't sell outs - we've always wanted to buy in."
By definition, that makes you part of the establishment. More significantly, it also makes you part of that group of people which will not change this country in any meaningful way.
For my next trick in my return to posting, I'll make the case that the receptionist who answers the phones at the company that makes Jose Padilla's restraints is guilty of torture. I'm serious.