Redstate

Is the point of these 2 stories to suggest that the champion of the common man, the vangaurd of the left the redoubtable KOS is a cynical manipulator doing nothing more than sheering gullible sheep of the left ? How could this be ? Could this mean that those on the left who have attained high office based on what seem to be such high ideals are nothing but cynical demogogue ?

this could be as good towatch as the sounds of silence from the theft of fitzmas by the jaws of reality.

such a nice guy (Screw em Markos)

Culture of Corruption...

So does the story.  

Funny how this supposedly ultrademocratic, grassroots blossoming of net citizenry resembles the faction-riven, purge-inclined political parties of 19th and 20th Century European left.

Or right, too, I reckon. What we're seeing -- internecinewise -- is more likely the result of the organizational and interpersonal dynamics common to those drawn to extremist politics than the result of the particular ideology in question.

Nothing that a few good Internet show trials can't fix.

It is a culture of wanting, no, NEEDING to be associated with someone one sees as a celebrity.  To be one of the "cool kids".  Same deal surrounding Hillary.  People of that ilk fawn over her simply because she is Hillary.  If Hillary said tomorrow that Israel must invade the West Bank, there would be those that would go "hmm, that sucks ... but it's the price one pays for sticking with Hillary!" ... unless of course it became "cooler" to be anti-Hillary at wich time one might be forced to go along or be left in the un-hip "yesterday's news" crowd.

People in that circle are very highly sensative to what is "cool" and who the trendsetters are.  They are sheep and will gladly jump off a political cliff if it is "cool" to do so.

If the wheels should come off this cart you are going to see a mass of hipsters spinning in circles looking for a new trendsetter to show them the way.  It is like switching off a porch light in the middle of the night and all the moths need to find someplace else to go.

There will be a lot of hand wringing, a lot of "I don't know what to do" and "I feel so betrayed" talk.  That's what happens when you latch onto someone else for your very identity and lack a strong self-identity.  When your position is best described as the position of a group rather than the position of yourself, you are at great risk of confusion when that group becomes rudderless.

My wife is a liberal, I end up hanging around with them a lot.  Many, particularly the younger ones, are interested in following their political celebs and possibly getting one of them to notice them like young girls hoping for a wink at a Beatles concert.  To them it is more than politics, it is their entire social identity.

Bust Kos and there are going to be a lot of bugs scattering into the night.

You may be right.

I agree.

DePaul is probably the least-known little-biggest activist school in the country.  And it is that way deliberately.  See M. Cherif Bassiouni, and while you're at it look up Douglas Cassell (now at Northwestern) and Len Cavise and Morrison Torrey and... well, just look up the whole rest of the faculty.  The Reader did a big story on Bassiouni a few years back, also, when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to establish the International Criminal Court.

And nobody has recognized his name that I've spoken to, although he was seated two places down from Kofi in Rome.  

That's DePaul, folks.  I should know.  I was the secretary to the Dean of their law school.

Well, surprise... corruption in politics! Unfortunately, this is fast becoming the norm in both parties and their supporters.  A bit more on the left, yes, but becoming way too common and if not stopped, will become the downfall of the democratic process.  Becoming very discouraged...

I would only disagree on one point.

Faction driven, yes, (heck, just read the title of this site).  Purge inclined, no.  When I read this site, most of the time (not always) I find people pretty much making fun of our opposition.

The whole point of this thread is that our opposition may not be as pristine as they hold themselves out to be.  Marcus, IMHO, has always held himself out to be a power-broker in the left, possibly in order to seek someday an office.  If he is tainted with money (key word is 'if'), then he should come clean and explain it to not only his constituants, but the whole Blogsphere as well.

My one point (other than the explanations above) is that we, on the right, have been held to standards way above and beyond normal interpersonal relations.  The left, on the other hand, expects to be given a free pass.  

Did Chelsea Green pay Kos for the plug?  Presumably he would want to scope out their work before going with them for his book, and/or was already familiar with them, them being a liberal publisher and all.  And he is in the business of pushing independent liberal media, so if he was reading Unembedded and liked it why wouldn't he recommend it?  I have friends who won't shut up about whatever book they happen to be reading...  Where is the pay-for-plug here?

As for the Townhouse mess, I agree that a few influential liberal bloggers holding the purse strings of the liberal blogosphere is a situation ripe for corruption.  But similar things happen on the right (Norquist's strategy meetings come to mind) so who here is surprised?

Kos knew of and was touting Chelsea Green long before Unembedded. I posted a rebuttal that includes links documenting this.

It's utterly irrelevant whether he knew of or touted Chelsea Green before.  The point is that he did so while forming a business relationship with them and denied it when asked.

But yes, thanks for posting your concerns....at dKos.  That was constructive.

Or the conflict of interest.  He is a liberal blogger touting liberal books from liberal publishers, and he selects a liberal publisher for his own book.  Should nobody who is preparing to write a book with Regenry tout other Regenry books?  Can they then be accused of quid-pro-quo?

denied it when asked ... link please.  If the context of the denial is where someone asks him if he has any business arrangement at all with CG, and he says flat-out "never have and not planning on it now," then that at least shows he's a liar.

I dont see evidence that he was forming a business relationship with the CG people back in 2004 (when he plugged Lakoff's absurd book). So I take his denial at face value.

I don't even see evidence that he was forming a business relationship in early 2005 when he plugged the CG book about Guantanamo - even though it is plausible that he was in discussions with them at that time, given the time frame.

Your point seems to be that Kos was hiding a relationshp with CG while he plugged Unembedded. But as far as I can tell, Kos posted several times that he would probably look at CG for his publisher. So everything was on the table.

FYI I did send you an email back when you wrote your first post alleging a connection with CG and DK, that contained the same information. I actually just recycled that email for my diary post at DK. Check your gmail archives on 12/19/05.  I never got a reply from you so I assumed you disagreed, which is why I didnt bother posting the  diary here as well (as you recall, I did mention that I would try to leave less of a footprint on RS these days, since my posts usually aren't of value here).

I am just failing to see - in this specific case - just what the ethical lapse is. I may just not be very bright when it comes to these things. But I thouhgt it relevant that Kos discussed CG well in advance of Unembedded, given what seemed to be an allegation that he was trying to hide a relationship with them.

Still, if someone has the patience to use small words and explain it to me one more time, I'm willing.

Again, wrong. The relationship at that point was explicitly denied.

I'm not sure what the point of confusion is here.

Also, that kind of flat-out "I'm not even considering CG as a business partner" denial would prove one thing:  that Kos was lying.  But without evidence for some sort of ideological test to get on this ad network, I fail to see what the huge scandal is here...

humans are social animals.

what you say seems to apply to the whole mainstream of any ideology you care to state.

Is it not ironic that it applies to the the non-conformists.

...declares that he is lord and master of all he surveys.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/22/13353/8854

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/22/1346/76052