Netroots: Building a Community vs. Censorship

Chris Bowers of OpenLeft today announced the banning of a chunk of commenters, in response to a rather unsurprising, though particularly heated candidate flame war. I cringed at first, like I imagine most did, but ultimately I agree with his move. In fact, I applaud it.

I have enormous respect for Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller. Their collective wisdom surrounding the Netroots, the meta therein, and general philosophy of the blogosphere provided the tracks for my thesis and my personal political development, frankly. My lovefest disclosed and aside, Chris made one particular point that really rang with me when I let it settle in (and browsed some of the absurdness responsible for the action):

"... Freedom of the press does not mean I am obligated to publish whatever you want to say on Open Left, which happens to be my (and Matt's and Mike's) press. I didn't get into blogging to engage in anti-social discussions that lead to nothing but pointless flame wars. If that is the sort of thing you enjoy, there are many forums to engage in that sort of behavior. However, as long as I am here, this will not be one of those forums."

A forum of discussion, be it present or digital, is only as strong as its community. Editors have the power to influence that community towards their own ends, both subtly and (in this case) with a heavy hand. Intolerance and ignorance are reasonable things to try weeding out, and given the extend to which OpenLeft commenters had allowed themselves to get caught up in their loyalties, I can't imagine a better way for Bowers/Stoller to have handled them.

One of the premises I strongly push as the power of the Netroots is the power of an open forum. The ability to have deep and meaningful conversation with other activists remotely, especially on the higher-traffick blogs, creates intellectual stimulus, a livefeed for communication, and an opportunity for improvement (and a tap into community interests) for the writer.

A drastic change in focus and unfiltered development can obliterate that sort of community, however. Case in point, MyDD. Once upon a time, my homepage and go-to source for a political fix. Even after my man-crushes split, I didn't get hooked to OpenLeft; I preferred my constant. The community took a nosedive from 30,000 feet though, when they introduced the candidate diaries. In true Drink The Kool-Aid fashion, MyDD's editors allowed passion to pass the line of decency when they stuck individual weekly diaries supporting each Democratic candidate on their frontpage - during a situation (Uh, Primary Season?) in which passion and opinions are both high and fragile, no less. The result? The nigh-obliteration of what was a reasonably collaborative community, into a mosh pit of candidate support, accusations, and an otherwise perfect example of the Internet Anonymity Theory.

Every blog with a large enough audience is suffering from this sort of battle, including the Great Orange Satan itself. In Kos' case (and MyDD's, for that matter), their readership is large enough that such a wholesale banning would likely reverberate through the community like dynamite. OpenLeft is picking up steam, but the amount of dedicated commenters is still low enough that Stoller/Bowers can get away with trying to shape the direction of the community in the face of blind ignorant zealotry.

The Thin Red Line

Those who know me are well aware with my "obsession" with FISA, and the legislation currently being battled in the Senate. I've followed the President's illegal wiretapping program since the story first broke years ago; I've written two papers challenging its legality, ethics, and the longterm effects it could have on our democracy. Its the topic I always choose to debate, the one I love to discuss, and the one that haunts me the most. Why the latter? Because after years of this, after knowing what it would do, if not what it would come to, I get to watch all my deepest fears come true.

Every generation has had its defining moment, the brief snapshot of time that has steered its direction - for better or worse - until either apathy has run its course, or trauma 'reboots' our perspectives. I can say, assuredly, with flawless conviction, that the FISA bill being discussed on the floor of the Senate at this very moment is our moment. Not Iraq, not Habeas Corpus, not Scooter Libby, nor even 9/11 - traumas all, that threaten us at every turn, but this... this overhaul of FISA and retroactive immunity for TeleComs, something that seems so "unsexy" compared to the other dramas unfolding around us, has the potential to obliterate what we know and believe about our government, our leaders, and democracy as we understand it in the States.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) has continued to promise the filibuster of his own party, putting to rest Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) believe that his leadership on the FISA issue was a campaign stunt while he was still in the running for POTUS. Smintheus made an exellent summary of the speech, so I borrow from him, but on the floor of the Senate a couple days ago, Dodd proved that he understood the heart of the issue, and the stakes:

Yes, secrecy is necessary, at times, in the life of every nation. But it’s a bedrock principle that democracies should always err on the side of less secrecy. For that reason, I believe that cases against the telecoms are best handled in our standard federal courts-which, by the way, have shown time and time again that they know how to protect state secrets...

It took three decades, three branches of government, four presidents, and 12 Congresses to patiently, painstakingly build up (the FISA) machinery. It only took one president to tear it down. Generations of leaders handed over to President Bush a system that brought security under the law, a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping he could conceive.

And he responded: “No thank you. I’d rather break the law.”

He ignored not just a federal court, but a secret federal court; not just a secret federal court, but a secret federal court prepared to sign off on his actions ninety nine point nine percent of the time. And he still hasn’t given us a good reason why. He still hasn’t shown how his lawbreaking makes us safer.

So I am left to conclude that, to the president, this isn’t about security. It’s about power: power in itself, power for itself.

I make that point not to change the subject, but because I believe it
solves a mystery. That is: Why is retroactive immunity so vital to this
president? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy; and secrecy, to this administration, means power...

And we find proof in their original version of retroactive immunity: a proposal to protect not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program.

In their original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.

Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt: their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted. They knew better than anyone else what they had done—they must have had good reason to be afraid! ...

The only thing that stands to be exposed if these cases go to trial is the extent of President Bush’s lawbreaking. That, he will keep from the light of a courtroom at all costs.

This is a self-preservation bill. And given the lack of compelling alternatives, I can only conclude that self-preservation—secrecy for secrecy’s sake - explains the president’s vehemence.

Well, you might say, he’ll be gone in a year—why not let the secrets die with this presidency and start afresh?

Because those secrets never rightfully belonged to him. They belong to history, to our successors in this chamber, to every one of us. Thirty years after the Church Committee, history repeated itself. If those who come after us are to prevent it from repeating again, they need the full truth.

And we need to set an unmistakable precedent: that determining guilt or innocence belongs to the courts, not to Congress or the president; that lawless spying will no longer be tolerated; and that, most of all, the truth is no one’s private property.

Emphasis mine. The right-wing smears and the punditry's talking points would have us believe that we're arguing over the right for the CIA to tap Grandma Smith's rotary-dial phone so they can listen in on her plans to play bridge next Sunday with the ladies, if it means better security. This isn't the argument, nor the result, nor even the damnable point.

What FISA means to us right now - what retroactive immunity means to us right now - is the Rule of Law. It means the seperation of power across our government. This legislation, this debate, embodies the thin red line we have paced for the better part of seven years now. The Congressional, Executive, and Judiciary branches of government are vested with seperate powers, seperate responsibilities, and just enough overlap and shared responsibility that they are each other's check and balance. We stand on one side of the line as of this moment - the side that was crossed when the Declaration of Independance and our Constitution were written; the side crossed with the signing of the Magna Carta. Believe it or not, with something so seemingly trivial as our phone companies, we stand at the edge of our very premise of democracy. For all the injustice and absurdity we've witnessed throughout this administration, this is, in a way, the climax - passing this legislation while including retroactive immunity creates a precedent that the President of the United States is legally and morally obligated to break the law. That regardless of the sheer absurdity of the situation, no matter how unneccesary (99.9% approval!) the act, s/he has the right:

... This is about far more than the telecoms. This is about the choice that will define America: the rule of law, or the rule of men...

It’s about the Military Commissions Act, a bill that gave President Bush the power to designate any individual he wants an “unlawful enemy combatant,” hold him indefinitely, and take away his right to habeas corpus—the 900-year-old right to challenge your detention.

It’s about the CIA destroying evidence of harsh interrogation—or, as some would call it, torture.

It’s about Dick Cheney raising secrecy to an art form...

It’s about the Justice Department turning our nation’s highest law enforcement offices into patronage plums, and turning the impartial work of indictments and trials into the machinations of politics...

It’s about extraordinary renditions and secret prisons...

It is about all of that, Mr. President. All of that. We are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the torture issue, or the habeas issue, or the U.S. attorneys issue, or the extraordinary rendition issue, or the secrecy issue.

As if each one were an isolated case! As if each one were an accident! We’ve let outrage upon outrage upon outrage slide with nothing more than a promise to stop the next one.

There is only one issue here. Only one. The law issue. Attack the president’s contempt for the law at any point, and it will be wounded at all points.

That’s why I’m here today. I am speaking for the American people’s right to know what the president and the telecoms did to them. But more than that, I am speaking against the president’s conviction that he is the law. Strike it at any point, with courage, and it will wither.

The Rule of Law, or the Rule of Men. Would you rather be a Constitional Democracy, or an Imperial Presidency? Because all joking aside, mustering the utmost serious I can... by 4:30PM on Monday, January the 26th, 2008, we may have our answer.

Sen. Dodd has shown amazing leadership on this issue, and his speech (and likely effort to filibuster) have been solidified as a part of this moment. Would-be POTUSes (Po-ti?) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have confirmed that they will be gracious enough to take time off from their campaigning to cast a 'Nay' vote, after staying silent on the issue so long. But it isn't enough. Three of the following Democratic Senators need to be convinced to vote Nay on cloture of the bill:

• Bayh (202) 224-5623
• Carper (202) 224-2441
• Inouye (202) 224-3934
• Johnson (202) 224-5842
• Landrieu (202)224-5824
• McCaskill (202) 224-6154
• Mikulski (202) 224-4654
• Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
• Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
• Pryor (202) 224-2353
• Salazar (202) 224-5852

Weekly Round-Up 1/24/07 - Introduction Edition

I'll pass on the introspective, philosophically heady introduction post to lay out "the goals and desires of the blog." That's not gonna fly here. If I wanted to bore readers half to death with mindless dribble from the forgotten corner of my brain, I'd write some poetry. Or post one of John Kerry's fundraising stump speeches, for that matter. One expects that said-goals and topics become readily apparent in time.

That said, the most likely place to start... is the end! An early round-up for the week:

House Speaker Sal DeMasi endorsed Hilliary Clinton for Leader of the Free World this Tuesday. Ol' Sal also ran with a new addition to his other pet project, Ways To Insult The Governor: "You really Devaled that one, Obama!"

Our newest Nobel Laurette, Al Gore, joined Massachusetts in the 21st century by coming out (ba-dum, ching) in favor of marriage equality:

In honor of my fashionista friend's fiancee, I give you one of the more genius baked-goods experiment I've seen in a long time. Bacon Cookies? Yes please.

The FISA bill is back. mcjoan at Kos has a call-list to get legislators on board with sanity. And no, Senator Dodd (CT) wasn't just joshing about filibustering his own party:

"Few things are more detrimental to this country than the erosion of and attack on the civil liberties we enjoy. This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; this is an American issue. If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law. More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. For all those who have stood with me throughout this fight, I pledge, once more, to stand up for you."

In other news, Senator Harry Reid has to change his pants.

Red Velvet Whoopie Pies. Delicious confectionery treat, or malicious Resolution buster? Despite the name, Wicked Whoopies does not, in fact, hail from the Bay State. It's also the first thing Maine does better than Massachusetts. Ever.

A little older than a week, but Michigan Democrats threw their support behind Mittens this go-around, in an effort to "keep [the] circular firing-squad of jerkos alive":

Bill Clinton says, "Screw it, I'm running for President."

Our good friends at the Sam Adams Brewery, ever researching more flavorful ways to get Boston's college students drunker, have decided to go in another direction - speed. At 27% ABV, Sam Adams Utopia aims to kick people in the teeth. Taste test will be forthcoming when it can actually be found.

Markus Kolic of DemApples, one of the wittiest bloggists I've had the pleasure to read, has revived his Sunday Screenings with a plethora of video entertainment. Check it out for more streaming goodness.

Delusions of Grandeur

We all remember Jim Ogonowski, yes? The would-be Congressman from the MA-05 special election? Despite a 45-51% loss to newly elected Representative Niki Tsongas, Jim's decided that the life of a public servant is the life for him, and is beginning preparations to run again.

This time though, he's aiming a little higher:

"Republican Jim Ogonowski, who narrowly lost a congressional race to Niki Tsongas in October, is preparing to challenge U.S. Sen. John Kerry, The Associated Press has learned. [...]

"We started a movement," the retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel said. "After my campaign ended, I've been very active throughout the state. I want to continue my public service."

All things considered, he didn't utterly crash and burn in MA-05, despite his obnoxious pandering with SCHIP and general demeanor. But.. really, Kerry? I understand the need to make certain incumbents don't go unchallenged - Long-term Campaign Strategy 101, don't let their war chest grow unchecked - but this is a waste of an otherwise viable candidate on the part of the GOP. That, or he really is that optimistic. In either case, I suppose I shouldn't complain too loudly..

In any case.. get ready for Round Two with Ogo the Uppity, SCHIP, and illegal immigration. Who knows? Maybe he's got a shot:

"Kerry, 64, has $9.5 million in his campaign account, compared to the $65,000 Ogonowski has left over from his congressional run."

Good luck, Jim.