What's Good for the Guy With a Blog ...

Kos is again defending his bloggy rights, this time in the face of gentle criticism of his post about being what he calls a "war pragmatist."  The diarist had the guts to suggest that alienating a large part of the traditional Democratic base with name calling may not be the wisest way to go.  Kos basically said "Whatever, whatever, I do what I want."   I'm popular because I don't appease anyone.  I won't stop.  It's a big blogosphere, feel free to go elsewhere. ...  It's not a bad defense.  It brought to mind the dust up he initiated by tearing NARAL to shreds for its single-issue obsession with perserving a woman's right to choose.  It turns out that Kos' I am Not a Gatekeeper Defense, formerly the Charles Barkley, I am Not a Role Model Defense, works even better for NARAL.  Watch:

NARAL became popular because of its style, because of its voice, because of its refusal to compromise what it believes in order to appease anyone. And it won't stop doing it.  As NARAL has said many times before to wails of outrage -- you don't like it, it's a huge country. Nothing is forcing anyone to join NARAL. Or, alternatively, disagree with it.  NARAL doesn't get offended when people say things it disagrees with.  NARAL pushes back.

NARAL will not be the be-all end-all of the progressive movement.  NARAL's not interested. If someone pisses NARAL off or annoys NARAL, it'll say so.  And if NARAL hurts some feelings, so be it. It's not going to pussy-foot its way around the various Democratic strategists for fear of offending.  Feel free to disagree with NARAL, but don't try to muzzle it.   No one censors NARAL.   See, that's one of the perks of being an organization with a proven history and expertise to combat an aggressive anti-choice movement intent on taking away women's rights and freedoms.

You go, girl.

Comments

[KathyR]

Thanks for reading Kos so I don't have to.

Thanks for using my favorite (and really, the only) Charles Barkley reference.

Thanks for waving NARAL's flag.

[john @ blogenlust]

Couldn't agree more--the Charles Barkley reference is the pefect analogy.

[KathyF]

I have a perfect solution to all Kos's problems: he no longer needs to be a spokesperson, representative, standard bearer, etc. for progressive causes. No one elected him any of those things, and I'm tired of a-list bloggers automatically being conferred the right to speak for me.

I can do that myself, thank you.

He is, really, just a guy with a blog, and not a whole lot to say that isn't said elsewhere.

(And he really doesn't need to come over here, either, and make inane comments about the British elections. There are plenty of British bloggers who cover politics perfectly well.)

It's like when everyone discovers those child prodigies are really just, well, children.

[Aeolus]

Hey you're both right.

And it's why I love blogs, and don't watch that stuff on TV that they call news.

[eRobin]

Hi, KathyF: He is very young and sometimes it shows.

Hi, Aeolus: I agree. Kos and NARAL are two sides of the same philosophical coin. It's just so funny to watch him fly off the handle when someone offers even the most respectful and well-intentioned criticism.

[Chris Clarke]

It's like when everyone discovers those child prodigies are really just, well, children.

Hey, leave me out of it! What'd I ever do to you?

[eRobin]

We're on to you, Chris.

[Thomas Nephew]

I don't think Kos flew off the handle all that much in this case. He was responding to an unwanted 'leader' designation, and and unwanted editorial input that ignored the point he was making.

Dracowyrm chose to discuss one phrase Kos used, rather than Kos' actual point about "anti this war" versus "anti any war" -- one I share, fwiw. If Kos had gone on and on about "touchy feely hippies" etc I could see the need for Dracowyrm's point, but he didn't.

I know I tend to rewrite a bit to 'tone down,' hedge, and/or balance what I say, and I often regret doing so later on, if only because the immediacy and relevance is gone (I've got dozens of abandoned 'drafts').

Re NARAL: in that post Kos was mainly criticizing NARAL for endorsing Chafee over Langevin, and spinning that out to point out that NARAL's interests and those of Democrats are not always identical. Since NARAL obviously thought so too, it's not quite right to call that 'tearing NARAL to shreds', more like frank disagreement about tactics: he thought 1 more Democratic Senator in the Senate was better, on the whole, than 1 more pro-choice Senator.

Given the vast difference in power between minority and majority parties in the the Senate, that's defensible. Some folks want to remake the Democrats in a purer political image, others see them as only a few seats away from majority status, and willing to compromise to get there.

So while on the war, Kos wants a narrower focus, he wants a broader perspective on the relationship between the pro-choice movement and Democrats. Either way, he includes some folks you or I might not, and excludes some folks you or I might not. Either way, that's his prerogative, I think, just as it is for NARAL and everyone else.

Maybe you're not really saying any different here; I just wanted to work out what I came away with from this.

[eRobin]

Hi, Thomas :)

I don't think Kos flew off the handle all that much in this case.

From years of reading Kos, the default voice he's developed in my head is combative. Lines like: "I laugh at people who say they can visualize peace," don't help.

As for the shreds comment, he called NARAL "myopic fools" and their position "supremely idiotic."

Dracowyrm chose to discuss one phrase Kos used, rather than Kos' actual point about "anti this war" versus "anti any war" -- one I share, fwiw. If Kos had gone on and on about "touchy feely hippies" etc I could see the need for Dracowyrm's point, but he didn't.

I thought that Dracowyrm bent over backwards to point out where he agreed with Kos on the value of pragmatism in protest politics. If Kos wanted people to address exclusively his point about viewing war pragmatically, then he shouldn't have thrown in the gratuitous stuff about the "touchy-feely hippy" types. He derailed his own argument.

So while on the war, Kos wants a narrower focus, he wants a broader perspective on the relationship between the pro-choice movement and Democrats. Either way, he includes some folks you or I might not, and excludes some folks you or I might not. Either way, that's his prerogative, I think, just as it is for NARAL and everyone else.

Maybe you're not really saying any different here; I just wanted to work out what I came away with from this.

I think we do agree. (although I'm not sure how broadly Kos really thinks on women's issues) I wasn't saying that he was wrong or right. I wanted to point out what I thought was a funny disconnect in his writing where he demands the perogative to make unpopular decisions but won't allow anyone else the same privilege.

[carla]

I think we do agree. (although I'm not sure how broadly Kos really thinks on women's issues) I wasn't saying that he was wrong or right. I wanted to point out what I thought was a funny disconnect in his writing where he demands the perogative to make unpopular decisions but won't allow anyone else the same privilege.

It his blog...so I guess it's up to him what the "priviledge" really is. Kos isn't the future of blogging, IMO. The smaller, localized blogs are. They're the ones who will have the real impact (and some already have) in a meaningful way.

I read Kos. Sometimes I even link to stories from his front page..usually written by Hunter (who I think is a kick ass researcher and writer). Kos has a place..but not nearly as large as he probably thinks it is..and not as small as those who are irritated by him would like it to be.

(shrug)

[eRobin]

The smaller, localized blogs are.

I agree with that 100%. Did you see the < a href="http://www.agendaforjustice.org/">new Nathan Newman project along those lines?

I read dKos too but mostly for the diaries, some of which are fantastic. JR Monsterfodder has a WalMart diary I enjoy.

[carla]

Did you see the < a href="http://www.agendaforjustice.org/">new Nathan Newman project along those lines?

No! I hadn't seen this.

It looks like it has the potential to be really, really cool. I hope the guy is able to get it off and running. It's a great idea.

[DavidByron]

I thought the same thing at the time I read it although my example was of the very people that Kos was attacking at the time he wrote.

"he demands the perogative to make unpopular decisions but won't allow anyone else the same privilege"

You think of the sort of abuse that ANSWER and "the free Mumia crowd" gets handed out by so-called progressives, even though they were the only ones marching much before the war started. Where's their right to say what they want to with their own blog/march? How come for Kos it's "I'm not a leader" but for ANSWER it's a series of vindictive attacks?

And it's not just Kos himself but I'd say the majority of people at dKos who would support Kos his absolute right to do what he likes with his "community blog" and at the same time mindlessly attack ANSWER for making their own decisions as to who will speak at their own marches?

[molly]

I have read and commented on kos for over a year. They stopped election fraud discussion even though lots of people were still pretty wound up. When I noticed them doing the same thing after the Hackett race, I wrote as a comment,"Heard you took Diebold money." I was immediately banned from the site. Two earlier comments I had written were taken off. If you blog on Kos, try mentioning that. I don't mind his ideas, I do mind him passing himself off as progressive.

[eRobin]

Hey, Molly :)

I wrote as a comment,"Heard you took Diebold money." I was immediately banned from the site.

Damn, talk about a short fuse. For some reason any discussion of election fraud scares the pants off Kos. He's a fool because nothing he thinks he's building or writing about or dabbling in will matter if we don't have the vote. And it's only because of the efforts of people he would label "fucking conspiracists" that we have some states with laws on the books mandating a auditable paper trail. It's nowhere near enough since recounts aren't mandatory, but it's a crack in the eVoting wall.