Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Progressive Blogosphere 2.0: Which blogs are doing it now?

Readers:

RL calls, so I can't maintain this thread, but let me at least pose the question:

If you had to build the initial network of PB 2.0 blogs (or sites) who would you choose and why?

I think I see "party invariant" as a key litmus test of membership, but I could be argued out of that, depending.

But I think "forswear truthiness" is a litmus test I cannot be argued out of. Truthiness rots everything.

Readers? Your candidates?

0
No votes yet

Comments

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Because no one person should decide who belongs and who doesn't.

Even putting it to a popular vote is inherently faulty, as the Great Orange Cheeto demonstrated this year.

But if I was being waterboarded and had to name names, I would say Alegre's Corner, TalklLeft, The Confluence, and Anglachel's Journal.

And this place, if y'all promised to behave.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

AM5's picture
Submitted by AM5 on

myiq2xu said:

"But if I was being waterboarded and had to name names, I would say Alegre’s Corner, TalklLeft, The Confluence, and Anglachel’s Journal.

And this place, if y’all promised to behave."

I would add reclusive leftist to this list.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

Really, why would that be necessary?

Yes, progressives that understand what that means on the issues--not all exactly the same but with many of the same general views and values...one of which was, some of us thought, not being for sale, right?

I'm thinking about Paul Wellstone right now...and then his training camps. Sigh.

The blogs would have to let everyone talk too though--within normal blog etiquette--not shut down views that were slightly different or "against the cause," like criticizing our own (which the Left generally is almost overexcellent at doing) but within good ranges as necessary for producing good and well-informed candidates. When they listen. Heh.

So--not shutting down ideas, and communicating with candidates too (although this then brings back the same question about reporting/commenting/activism.)

It's hard for me to say: Greenwald's done great work and also started the 'Strange Bedfellows' Accountability Now organizing with Jane, which seems exactly right about accountability/party invariance in candidates. So add Greenwald (sometimes imperfect but see the first link above)? But what about FDL? They seemingly did not do the party invariant, open speech thing for part of this election season...

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

Honest Media Critique = Supported Hillary in the Primaries

Require Vetting for Membership = Blogs that were ambigous or non-committal in their support for Hillary

Correct? Or if these are not the criteria, how would the resulting in-out-maybe list be different?

I haven't had time to pay much attention to the PB 2.0 discussion but it seems to me that it's an attempt to split the blogosphere based on allegiance to one or another leadership figure. Neither of whom really give a fuck about you or the government policies we need.

How you split and have your own, separate internets is another question I have.

Seems like more of a "fuck you, we're going to have our own clubhouse and you're not invited" kind of thing.

Please enlighten me. The thing that scares me is a vision of something like the '70s where the Left was atomized into millions of self-righeous factions that refused to talk to each other. And don't give me that unity pony stuff. David Axelrod didn't invent the concept of a unified front.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Honest Media Critique = Supported Hillary in the Primaries

Avedon made it consistently clear that she didn't like the Clintons, and I can't recall as she was ever anything but (IMHO justly) praised in these parts for the integrity of her positions. The same goes for Arthur Silber. BTD remained an Obama supporter throughout the primaries but retained his critical faculties re: his chosen candidate and became a Corrente favorite and a PB2.0 discussion host. No Quarter made it consistently clear that it was pro-Hillary/anti-Obama but never earned too much trust from anyone around here. And leading lights in the PUMA movement have learned that the fangs come out here if you intimate any generosity toward John fucking McCain and company.

Require Vetting for Membership = Blogs that were ambigous or non-committal in their support for Hillary

See above.

Correct? Or if these are not the criteria, how would the resulting in-out-maybe list be different?

Lambert and I repeatedly urged Correntians who didn't agree with us to make their cases early, often, and loud. For various reasons that didn't happen, but not out of lack of desire on our parts to hear quality arguments in favor of Obama and/or against Hillary. Likewise, criticism of our posts was typically quick 'n dirty and often blaming us for things someone else had said or venting general frustration at the primacy and tenor of "pie fight" not any particular points we'd gotten wrong -- and never, ever followed up with sustained debate. If there were bloggers who made a great case for Obama and didn't cut corners on the truth, I didn't see them, and I really wanted to. Any suggestions on some bodies of work worth looking at?

I haven’t had time to pay much attention to the PB 2.0 discussion but it seems to me that it’s an attempt to split the blogosphere based on allegiance to one or another leadership figure. Neither of whom really give a fuck about you or the government policies we need.

How you split and have your own, separate internets is another question I have.

Seems like more of a “fuck you, we’re going to have our own clubhouse and you’re not invited” kind of thing.

Please enlighten me. The thing that scares me is a vision of something like the ’70s where the Left was atomized into millions of self-righeous factions that refused to talk to each other. And don’t give me that unity pony stuff. David Axelrod didn’t invent the concept of a unified front

These eyes saw a lot of truthiness about -- notably from the once media-critiquing progressive blogs and the supposedly lefty friendly parts of the media -- during the primaries, primarily of the sort that made Obama an angel he wasn't and Hillary a devil she wasn't. They saw purges from institutions like DK and DU and comments threads on virtually every major liberal blog become thoroughly hostile to those who didn't buy Obama's transcendence and Hillary's Rovian racism. The quality of the narratives went to shit. That seems to some of us a problem.

The problem with the Unity shtick is that it always computed only one way. Even when Hillary had the upperhand after NH, the only commonly accepted form of unity was for Obama to take all the chips. That, like Kos's declaration that his site didn't have to be "fair" didn't sit well with some folks' sense of justice. Neither did profiting by falsely accusing Democrats of racism. Neither did profiting by boundless misogyny, especially from the media. Neither did stealing unearned delegates. YMMV, as they say.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

if you had actually read all the Pb2.0 posts rather than make incorrect assumptions about what we're trying to do.

You don't have to agree with the whole endeavor, but at the very least, you could carefully review the posts AND comments / discussions we've had about it rather than dismiss it as "pissed-off Hill supporters who want their own club".

At the very least, you would have figured out that, yes, the primary was the trigger for PB2.0, but it's not about Hillary support.

It's quite insulting, after what, 6 weeks of thoughtful posts and reflections and discussions, to have you show up uninformed and dismissive, and it's up to us to enlighten you.

Just go read.

Submitted by lambert on

Apparently:

I haven’t had time to pay much attention to the PB 2.0 discussion but it seems to me that it’s an attempt to split the blogosphere based on allegiance to one or another leadership figure.

I'd be interested to see the posts in this thread -- I've just added this to the book so the whole series is available -- that gave rise to this impression. My own personal view is that a lot of people put in a lot of serious thought on this series of threads, and that the discussion was conducted at an unusually high level.

I'd also be interested to know whether Kos's purge of [not Obama] supporters comes under the heading of "splitting the blogosphere" or not.

All I want is a discourse that's not toxic. Is it anywhere to be found?

Yes, I know neither Dem candidate "cared about me"; I'm not a child.

What do you mean by a "united front"? Is that like a government of national unity formed by both parties?

UPDATE Re leadership figures: Again, if the reading is done, it will become quickly evident that some, I among them, have advocated a distributed model with many leaders, and not a few leadership figures at the top of the curve, like Kos, who essentially turned his site into an Obama 527 and got nothing in return for it at all (except, of course, in terms of his own personal business. Not that there's anything wrong with that).
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

It's a tough one because a lot of sites are in electoral mode. For instance, I'd be curious to see what happens with the Confluence beyond the 2008 election. For now, because of its electoral positioning, I would not put it at PB2.0... not that I don't like it or read it, but I don't think it fits.

I would put:
Shakesville
Avedon
BAR
Suburban Guerrilla
Talk Left
Daily Howler was there before anyone else
and my own blog, if I may be so self-serving

Submitted by lambert on

I would add Pruning Shears, for sure.

And I was wondering about some blogs like Crooked Timber.

Maybe, even, some conservative or libertarian blogs. Strange bedfellows, and all that.

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

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Edwards last week, now this! I'm running out of role models.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

... you thought wrong.

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

Submitted by lambert on

I was more looking for what came first to mind, based on reading patterns. I agree with the above list, especially Avedon. Not to slight any of the others, but she kept her balance during very trying times.

And how about blogs more off the beaten track, for us at least? Like Making Light? And any food or knitting or gardening or construction or business (!!) blogs?

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

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Let's say we identify a list of blogs on a variety of topics. Then what??

Shouldn't we start with the basic principles we outlines before, get as neat logo and use that as advertising/marketing?

Why would the owners of the identified blogs agree to be part of PB2.0?

Submitted by ohio on

Also, perhaps consider different ways people can commit---bloggers as opposed to entire sites, for instance?

But I'm getting ahead. Just wanted to second the Doc and add the thing about money.

daily democrat's picture
Submitted by daily democrat on

Seems to me that it makes perfect sense for a group of people who thought they were part of something, who gradually or suddenly awakened to the idea that they weren't part of that thing any longer, to begin to ask where they are going from here...not attempt to cordon off a part of the web, or to create an exclusive/ approved list, but to ask for collective direction and inspiration.

To me, the direction would depend on the long range goals - a "program for the left" - and on some discussion of what the word progressive means.

As for p2B out there right now, I think you have to look no farther than your own front door. If I were you, I'd be asking how you could clone yourselves in a network. How you could take what you've got here and make it more than it is today.

Perhaps take on topics related to progressive politics, like the environment, or justice, or anti-poverty. Or how you could reach out beyond the US borders to establish sister blogs in other countries, considering the politics of other lands in themselves, and in their relationships to the USA. Or entertain guests at home...foreground invited bloggers.

Finally, regarding the nomination of star websites, I love all those that people have mentioned so far (especially Anglachel) and I wonder if this question of which websites people propose could be made a permanent feature of your own site via some bit of code. It would be excellent if we could enter/edit a list and could also rate the listed sites. I love the starmeter feedback system and the users' ratings charts over at pro.imdb.

trishb's picture
Submitted by trishb on

These blogs are those I continued to read through the entirety of the campaign:

Shakesville
Jon Swift
Avedon
Digby
TalkLeft
Greenwald
Krugman
Crooked Timber
Echidne
Feministe
Hecate
Lance Mannion
Tom Watson
The Left Coaster
NYCweboy

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

VL, I think these words spell it out:

Lambert and I repeatedly urged Correntians who didn’t agree with us to make their cases early, often, and loud. For various reasons that didn’t happen, but not out of lack of desire on our parts to hear quality arguments in favor of Obama and/or against Hillary.

You still fail to understand that I didn't and still don't have any fucking interest in arguing for or against Hillary or Obama.

Me: "Don't. Want. To. Talk. About. Pie. Fight."

You: "I'm still not hearing any good arguments for Obama"

Me: [bangs head against table]

I think the pie fight distracts from the policy issues, gets activists working themselves into a frenzy over politicians who only look out for themselves, and splits the progressive movement.

You (and others here at Corrente) seem to interpret everything through the pie-fight lens. Any news event, however distantly related. Even my comments about wanting to stay out of the pie fight.

I'm not blaming Hillary supporters for the pie-fight or for splitting the movement. Both sides and all people obsessively involved in it share the blame.

Again, try to imagine a universe of dialogue where people may exist who are not trying to score points for or against one of these two people.

BTW: BTD an Obama supporter? In his CYA sentences introducing long posts defending Hillary perhaps. No Quarter are nutballs and I'm glad you all have distanced yourselves from that crew.

Submitted by lambert on

...
as opposed to where other people would like you to be. And you have to start from where you have actually been, as opposed to where others would like you to have been.

Shystee, I think if you actually do the reading (not just professor Kolb, but the whole thing) you will find that there are a lot of ideas and threads that are congruent with what you want.

May I suggest that it might be a more effective strategy to pull out the threads that you agree with and push them forward?

NOTE As far as the pie-fight, I don't see how its possible to talk about PB 2.0 without addressing misogyny under PB 1.0. And it's virtually impossible to talk about that without referring to, like, actual events (evidence). I don't see how we can just shove the whole thing down the memory hole -- if we did that, we'd really be just like the press.

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

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

First you post a finger-wagging comment falsely claiming that we only trust bloggers who are pro-Hillary.

Now you're shaming me for wishing that blogmates who periodically muttered that we were all wet had expressed their dissent with timely, clear, and compelling cases.

Boy, you've really got me with your paraphrase, "I’m still not hearing any good arguments for Obama.” I mean, really, how could that triviality possibly have any relevance when contemplating the recent past, the election ahead, and the likely course of American politics over the next four-to-eight years and beyond?

Why would any liberal blogger fuss about the integrity of the journalism/citizen journalism that routinely put its thumb on the scale -- often exhibiting or condoning behavior that used to be anathema to lefties -- to push a candidate we haven't found any reason to trust over another whom we believe would be more be dedicated to and more successful at pursuing a progressive agenda?

It's not like today's American chief executive wields nearly kingly powers, or that the Bush era demonstrated that there were extraordinary risks from an under-explored candidate, a disreputable media, or a broken electoral process, right?

If the last eight years have told us anything, it's that American presidential politics are of little consequence, a mere "pie fight," if you will.

Finally, the most productive response to all those lost snowflake blog-babies, all those posts on other matters that Lambert and didn't write because we were caught up in our wacky obsession with American presidential politics, was for fellow bloggers not to post on those neglected matters, either. What an ideal way to work those policy issues, to help us "imagine a universe of dialogue where people may exist who are not trying to score points for or against one of these two people."

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

FD, I really don't mean to be insulting. I respect your work here especially.

I read Corrente at least daily and this is the impression of PB2.0 I have come away with.

I read the whole thread with Prof. Kolb and it sounded to me like an intelligent conversation all round but the bottom line from his interlocutors was "but... we enjoy calling the Obama Fans names, and besides, they did terrible despicable things".

I read your post about Social Justice and I thought "right on!" until you tried to tie the issue to the 2008 primaries somehow and then it made me depressed. Why not just talk about Social Justice?

If you really want blogs like Crooked Timber who were not really involved in the pie-fight to join this separate internet thing, you will have to convince them that it is not about Hillary vs. Obama. And if you haven't persuaded me you may have a long way to go. Or not.

I'm not here to discourage anyone or tell anyone to STFU, I'm just giving my feedback as a very badly lapsed member of this community.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

Yes, I think it is a case of poor marketing, unless my evaluation of the product is correct. See my response to FD above.

I’d also be interested to know whether Kos’s purge of [not Obama] supporters comes under the heading of “splitting the blogosphere” or not.

Fuck Kos with a thousand Convention Centers.

Of course the purge split the blogosphere. The pie fight split the blogosphere. The purge was one of it's most heinous manifestations.

Rub your eyes and see that in me, you are not dealing with a composite of all the OFB trolls you have been fighting with over the past six months.

When I say that you and other Hillary supporters are doing something I think is wrong that does NOT mean I think when Obama supporters do the same thing that is OK.

I and some (some not) current and former Corrente bloggers have been thinking outside that box of duality since the box came around.

On thing that makes discourse toxic is identification with authority figures. And I'm not talking about the leaders of the new and separate blogosphere, I'm talking about Hillary and Barry.

Another thing that makes discourse toxic is tribalism.

Someone from your tribe did something bad to someone from my tribe so I'm going to do something bad to you.

This may sound stupid but reading blogs during the peak of the pie fight and the comment wars was like watching bloody, primitive tribal warfare. Perhaps this is a function of the internet-enabled social network medium.

Do you really improve discourse when you exclude members of another tribe, even if that tribe excluded you first?

I'm sure you know that Hillary doesn't care about you. But how much time and energy have you expended over the past 6-9 months defending her and working to advance her political career? What did you get for your efforts?

Your "and we get?" question is a crucial one to ask all activists, blogospheric and not. It is the only one that matters, IMNSHO. AT&T knows exactly what it gets for it's efforts.

You know that I mean a united progressive front, an intact network. One that can actually work against the verry united conservative front.

This doesn't mean that you have to kow-tow to the Obamessiah or join mass rallies. It means that you don't cut off communication with people who share the same end goals.

Submitted by lambert on

... as the start of precisely the same kind of "united front" that you want, and the creation of an "intact" network. Ditto lack of duality. That's exactly what the threads about "party invariance" and getting beyond electoral politics is all about.

Do the reading, for pity's sake. Heck, you could volunteer to do next week's symposium, if you think the whole venture's going to go off the rails. Why not?

As for taking up Hillary's side, I certainly learned a lot. About politics, about the Democratic party, about the blogosphere, about myself, and about others. I don't regard that as a failure, despite the fact that the SDs made the choice that they did.

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

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

seeing as most the blogs I read (and I'm including my own in this) are all C and D list blogs and I like it that way. It seems to keep them more open to critiquing all sides. Though they're also definitely more international in scope as well and most tend to focus on disability rights, feminism, etc. One of the biggest blogs (outside of all the ones being named for this list) is Austrailian. I'm learning a lot about their politics.

Go Hillary or Go Green!

Powered by Yarn

Submitted by lambert on

This isn't about hits, but about content.

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

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I'd like to add Black Agenda Report, Total Information Awareness, and Steve Clemens (who I usually disagree with) to the list of PB 2.0 submitted by TrishB (although I disagree with her on the inclusion of Digby and GG).

As for including Greenwald, Digby, and FDL in the mix.... if an honest media critique is a prerequisite, all three fail miserably. Greenwald should be considered a resource because of the excellent work he does when he burrows down into a specific subject, but that's about it -- ultimately, Greenwald is just as much of a mediawhore as Aravosis -- he's just better mannered. And both Hullabaloo and FDL have already embraced McCain Derangement Syndrome...

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

He should be our Yoda regarding the media critique

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

n/t.

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

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

I think I'm not very happy to have my concerns about who's going to be president of the U.S. dismissed from on high as nothing more than part of a "pie fight." I think that's simply truthiness coming from another direction.

It might be a "pie fight" if the differences between the candidates were trivial and superficial, but they are not and were not. The character, tactics, and yes, policy pronouncements of the now presumptive nominee -- and his blogospheric and media supporters -- as they gradually revealed themselves were and are directly responsible for crystallizing my own rather inchoate discomfort with our politics in general and the political blogosphere in particular.

Perhaps some superior minds have no need to start with the particular and work up to the general, but mine is not so lofty a thing. Perhaps those who find the working out of those thoughts tedious and small-minded have more congenial places to play rather than injecting Gore-like heavy sighs into discussions of the issues we little people are wrestling with?

Were it not for the "pie fight," we wouldn't even be talking about a PB2.

Submitted by lambert on

What you said, gyrfalcon:

The character, tactics, and yes, policy pronouncements of the now presumptive nominee — and his blogospheric and media supporters — as they gradually revealed themselves were and are directly responsible for crystallizing my own rather inchoate discomfort with our politics in general and the political blogosphere in particular.

The old is dying and the new is struggling to be born. In the interim, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

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

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"Were it not for the 'pie fight,' we wouldn’t even be talking about a PB2."

We screwed up by:

a) Noticing the problem
b) Remembering the problem
c) Trying to solve the problem

That's three strikes against us, right there!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

We have way more than three strikes against us.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

... is that so far as I can tell, and as I said in other ways above, if you cut to the chase, and look for the expression of user requirements, everything Shystee says he wants is in the PB 2.0 threads, in the book, and a lot more good stuff besides.

Even more frustrating, so far as I can tell, Corrente (hat tip, FrenchDoc) is the only place in the blogosphere where this discussion is even happening.

So to have that effort, which has involved a substantial amount of work, and invitations to many others in the blogosphere, characterized as:

Seems like more of a “fuck you, we’re going to have our own clubhouse and you’re not invited” kind of thing.

is, well, frustrating. Apparently, and this is gratifying, the guests we invited into our house, and the people who took the trouble to post thoughtful comments, didn't feel the same way.

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

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It was becoming clear to me that pretending away the inequities of the "pie fight" was going to be oh-so-reasonably demanded before some would engage in PB2.0 discussions.

Just like Scalia wants us to "get over it" re: Florida 2000. It's not like we're still paying for his decision about that, are we?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Not to mention that we didn't start the pie fight.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I would say that any blog (or website, or online resource) that wants to call itself (or anyone who wants to describe something else) as PB2.0 can't be afraid to be involved in a pie fight. In fact, a pie fight that is based on FACTS is A VERY GOOD THING! As a corollary PB2.0 can't be afraid to call bullshit against its own. I don't see how Shystee can have it both ways. I'm really not clear on it, although I would be interested to know if Shystee thinks that nothing bad happened in the so-called progressive blogoshpere over the last year. Move along folks, nothing to see here?

Uh, no.

So my vote for what I would consider PB2.0 starts with places which either through their structure or through their character reject and/or expose truthiness in all forms (and in one way or another advance the goal I put forth below).

Party invariate, yes (subject to the above), candidate invariate, yes (subject to the above), I would even put forth POSITION invariate (subject to the above), the only thing which can't be invariate is the goal.

And here it is: making the planet a better, more humane, more honest, less toxic, more egalitarian, more fair, more sustainable, and (dare I say) more enjoyable place for every person and creature living upon it.

By absolutely rejecting truthiness (the new word for lying, disingenous bullshit) and embracing the above goal as an endpoint, I think we can find many, many websites which ARE PB2.0.

Here are some obscure ones (I won't repeat the usual suspects, the primary ones are this site and Somerby), some of which I have mentioned in the past.

The Comics Curmudgeon Humor, pop culture
Paul Jorion's Blog - Economics
Sic Semper Tyrannis - International affairs, not always "progressive" but never "truthy".
Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry - more humor, equal opportunity offender style
Weld Reality talking truth about how things you use every day are mal-manufactured due to corporate incompetence (more so even than greed).
Cargo Law - a site dedicated to exposing the ugly underbelly of the transportation aspect of globalization.
Sailing Anarchy A raucus across the board political discussion. But you have to be a sailor. (The front page pic is funny today www.sailinganarchy.com)

Oh, and I was presumptous enough to make a quickie blogspot location called Progressive Blogosphere 2.0 to discuss and share sites we all think are PB2.0.

I would like to either give it away or open it up to whoever else wants to administer a site like that. It doesn't have to be the definitive location, but I thought it would be good idea to have a blog just dedicated to the topic.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

A local story that might help as it does not involve Prez candidates:
Local president of a development co. runs for selectman in a town where he is planning a major development that does not meet current zoning requirements. He is threatening (in local newspaper interviews and public meetings) to sue town for "outdated" zoning.
Although selectmen never say their party, development guy says he's a D and in fact speaks at this year's local caucus for Prez (which is later disputed as possibly illegal.)
Local progressive group that has been working for years against this development and other oversized, nongreen developments in town endorses development guy. He's so progressive they say and use their mailing list to endorse him, not mentioning his development prez position. When it's raised, the group says he's promised to abstain from voting on his own development (neutral? or removing a no vote?) Development guy says that he is in favor of other developments like this own and will vote for them and does not share the group's environmental concerns. Honesty appreciated. But group continues to endorse him.
Development guy loses the election but not by much.
Why should anti-development group be trusted in the same way again? They have done good work and have a clear agenda and mission statement--which they completely disregarded and in fact participated in an election in a way that is opposite to the interests of the group. Further, there was no rationale given like development guy would be so much better at some other selectman duty.
Even if anti-development group goes back to good work reporting on town problems, the voter's blind trust should be broken. I don't know what happened or why development guy was endorsed (although he's well-liked personally, people "feel" he's progressive and he will be providing jobs) but he clearly said he was not going to be progressive (without using that word.)
In this case, I don't see how different definitions of progressive come into play because the anti-development group had a mission statement. But the group stopped being able to judge the development guy by their own stated standards, and so their trustworthiness decreased. The anti-development group thinks this is not a problem. But for those who are trying to make decisions in future, they know the group's future recommendations may not even reflect the mission statement of the group, part of which included fully educating the public about the impact of elections, plans, locations, green and nongreen impact and developments (which they did not do in this case.)
The new untrustworthiness of the group is not about development guy. It is about saying you are doing one thing and then doing another; and then further saying doing whatever you want based on no standards isn't a problem and everyone should just act like it never happened, even though it may happen again.

jackyt's picture
Submitted by jackyt on

seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

to the pb2.0 list

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

IMNSHO
Cyrano's Online Journal
There are so many different writers and different journals under that umbrella. It may seem radical to some, but there and The Black Agenda report are two of the news sources I turn to to fill in the gaps left by the NYT, CBC, BBC, etc.

(Plus I'm really left and it really pissed me off when everyone was going on about how progressive Obama is. Um, no. Just no.)

Go Hillary or Go Green!

Powered by Yarn