I would recommend the three-part BBC series "The Power of Nightmares" to every Democrat, independent, Independent, RINO, etc.

It chronicles the rise of Islamism and Jihadism, juxtaposing that rise with the neo-conservative movement and how they created faceless enemies in "terror" and "the left" to take control of the GOP and push their agenda. Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, and other neo-con thinkers are interviewed extensively. It's a very enlightening series.

Hmmm... Well, these kinds of silly blog wars are all too common in the blogosphere.

Disagreement is fine, but sometimes it gets personal. And sometimes, people just can't seem to let it go.

I don't have any idea who did what to whom, when, and on what blog. And I'm not sure I care.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

"Since when does some guy on a blog speak for the Dem party?"

Indeed. Even the petty sniping seen too much by both the Merkley and Novick supporters on Blue Oregon has been comparatively calm and well-mannered compared to most of the Internet, which is a free speech zone for anyone who can master a few basic skills. I understand what it's liked to vilified in the press, Pat, but I think you're extrapolation of "Beaver Boundary" = "Democratic Party" is a stretch.

That said, I'd encourage you to stay in an organized party (or create one). Collective action and coherent, consistent and sustainable approaches to shaping policy are helped by organizations--such as political parties--that create forums for collective action and debate, as well as a collective identity. Politics is about the "poli," and in the absence of party coalitions, the alternative is mostly cults of personality, e.g. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader. That, and it's also true that the point of view of promoted by the most organized "side" usually prevails. Pulling together a short-term coalition to support a single candidate is unlikely to ever create real change in the face of practiced, organized opposition.

"We are many; they are few," but we need to be organized lest their phalanxes to route us from the field.

Tom Powers? That name sounds familiar in Salem circles. Izzat the same Tom Powers who is the LA for Mitch Greenlick? You know--Mitch Greenlick, the guy who called Novick all kinds of personally insulting names on Blue O a couple of weeks ago?

Is THAT who BB is? Reallllly.....!

I'm thinking seriously about changing by "Party Affiliation" back to Green after the primary. The motivating factor is less about the Senate Primary that we're having than about the performance of the Dems in Congress. Their continued (and seeming never ending) capitulation to Bush makes me embarrassed to be part of the same party.

I registered as a Democrat for the first time in 2004 to try to work "within the party," and have been involved with some campaigns for some great people (who happened to be Democrats). Somehow, having decent people locally and throughout the state who are Democrats seem to change the behavior of "The Party" at its level of "leadership."

I don't get it, Pat. How does the opinion of some individual campaign-partisan come to represent the entire "Democratic Party" in your mind, and lead you to write a slam-piece against all of us working within it?

Is THAT who BB is?

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, TJ. You can parse the differences as much as you like but the bottom line is that you didn't appreciate Jack Bog outting you. Seems mighty hypocritical for you to turn around and participate in trying to out someone else. But then again it would fit the pattern of doing whatever you think will somehow be a partisan advantage for Novick.

Glass houses, TJ...

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2007 11:22:25 AM

Ditto!!

One good thing that has come of this is that now someone can be held accountable for the way Tom has been treating people on his blog.

It's one thing to rely on anonymity so that you can say sensitive, but informative things, that could get one into trouble -- a la deepthroat. It's another thing entirely to do so in order to trash people without consequence.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, TJ. You can parse the differences as much as you like but the bottom line is that you didn't appreciate Jack Bog outting you. Seems mighty hypocritical for you to turn around and participate in trying to out someone else. But then again it would fit the pattern of doing whatever you think will somehow be a partisan advantage for Novick. Glass houses, TJ...

Of course, Jack never "outed" me; it was not a hidden secret but simply an undeclared truth. My personal email includes both my name and my handle, for heaven's sake! If you remember, I shrugged it off at the time as an attempt to intimidate me that failed. Being "exposed" was no crisis. What I DID object to was the silly way in which it was used as an intimidation/silencing tool, in response to his having been called out on the facts of one issue or another.

This did not appear to be any kind of attempt to expose or silence someone, other than to clarify who was being referred to--since Pat Malach referred to the proprietor of BB as a "she"--and attempt to resolve it. Henry threw out the name and it seemed familiar.

But given the way you've misapprehended much of the conversation about Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley these past few months--claiming that Novick smears Merkley with GOP talking points, etc.--I'm not surprised you leap to conclusions of malice.

My name was used in an attempt to bully me. I don't see any such attempt here--and since I made clear at the time that I made no claims to the sacredness of my anonymity (only pseudonymity), I also fail to see support for the charge of hypocrisy. Nice try, though.

You might ask yourself why you're not upset that this particular blogger apparently used public voter rolls to "out" Pat's political affiliation, though--THAT sure seems like a hypocritical act, in such a vein.

Pat, anyone who blogs regularly is going to write some stupid stuff now and then. i know i've gone hyperbolic at times, and i've fallen short of my personal pledge to be respectful of others. i've even been wrong, although i try to avoid actual facts whenever possible (little bastards will just make your life miserable).

and the more emotional something is, the more likely we are to stray across the line into bullshittery. which makes the use of "tao" in a blog nick kind of ironic.

and while i agree with you that one Dem attacking another for pushing Republican talking points -- and who is less likely to do that than Steve Novick? what a ridiculous accusation -- i'd give you my late mother's advice: Consider the source. or that Jesus guy: You'll know a tree by its fruit.

or even F. Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

What I DID object to was the silly way in which it was used as an intimidation/silencing tool, in response to his having been called out on the facts of one issue or another.

Well sure. And nobody believes that you or Pat might possibly be interested in silencing Tao. Oh nooooo....

(rolls eyes)

Who exactly do either of you think you're fooling?

Well sure. And nobody believes that you or Pat might possibly be interested in silencing Tao. Oh nooooo....

I haven't seen any sign that taoiseach could ever be so easily silenced. But if taoiseach really is Mitch Greenlick's LA, then that presents a lot of ethical issues of the kind Kari is so scrupulous to avoid by his ubiquitous disclaimers.

I mean, people here tease him about the disclaimers and even mock them from time to time, but he does that for a reason: so anyone reading his words, even if that person has never been to BlueO before and knows none of the backstory of anyone writing here, Kari's cards are on the table. Likewise when Jake comments here, he outs himself every time. When Jenni or Carla comments here, each is extremely scrupulous about making her disclosures.

That's how you earn trust and respect.

If taoiseach were a whistleblower, we'd be having a different conversation. But so far he seems merely to be a bully who was interested in the benefits of anonymity to avoid the consequences of the way he likes to bash people.

I certainly don't expect that his voice will be silenced. But now he will have to own that voice, and take responsibility for what it says.

Not that anyone will read this far down in the comments, but...

The Democratic Party of Oregon is bending over so far backwards that we're bending forwards in terms of staying neutral on primaries.

Please don't conflate a blogger with the Party.

Who is the Party? You are. It's the old saying "Politics belongs to those who show up."

Politics is really, really hard work. I know it's the hardest thing I've ever done. It's a lot easier to sit around and complain. It's especially hard to take complaints from people who want to tell the Democratic Party how to run things, but don't register as Democrats and don't participate.

It's especially hard to take complaints from people who want to tell the Democratic Party how to run things, but don't register as Democrats and don't participate.

Our money goes to pay for your primary elections. Don't wanna hear my opinion? Stop spending my money. It's that simple.

I haven't seen any sign that taoiseach could ever be so easily silenced.

Did you ever see any sign that TJ could ever be so easily silenced?

Did the lack of any such sign mean that Jack wasn't interested in silencing TJ? Torrid clearly doesn't believe so.

What's yer point here?

LT, believe it or not, not everything in my life is about whether or not Steve Novick gets nominated or elected. I'm guessing that Steve and Jake already know that, but perhaps it's best if I state it for the record. In my mind, the primary election campaign is just the wallpaper behind the ethical issue that is being presented.

Whenever anyone comments anonymously or pseudonymously about his or her employer in a public forum (other than to provide basic factual information like an address or a phone number), that's a problem. You saw me commend Kari and Carla (and Jake and Jenni) for their consistent adherence to the ethical standard. The CEO of Whole Foods got in trouble with the SEC doing the same thing, and damaged his company's brand image. It's not just about taoiseach - if he is Tom Powers, it's also about Mitch Greenlick's reputation, which Tom Powers owes a duty to protect. And as angry as I am with Mitch about that bogus "smear" column he published here, the principle is more important. There's no way Mitch could have condoned some of the stuff taoiseach has said, just as the Whole Foods board of directors and PR organization had no idea the CEO was sock-puppeting on Yahoo Finance message boards. You just have to know where to draw the line.

I'v had a dust up with Sal Peralta, we opposed each other in DPO and I never took a swipe at him, I just beat him, once he decided Democrats were crap and Indies were the stuff

With all due respect, Chuck, you are a liar and a fool.

Anyone who remembers your little gun vote in Medford knows that I didn't say a word in opposition of the measure, and you and I both know that I agreed not to oppose the measure in hopes that it would help breathe some life into the Democratic Party east of the Cascades.

If I'd wanted to kill your efforts to shill for the NRA, I would have emailed other DPO delegates.

This business about me thinking that the "Democrats are crap" is a load of crap. I have always been an advocate for the rights of 3rd parties. I will continue to do so regardless of party affiliation.

I'll continue to push for greater comity, and I'll treat people with generally the level of respect they treat me with.

But the fact that I'll support a person whom I regard as the best candidate in a given race, or the fact that I think it's good to work with Republicans who are willing to cooperate is not an indictment of the Democratic Party.

I put people ahead of partisanship, and I value solving problems more than I value the hyper-partisanship that we've been getting from the legislature. You don't. I get it.

But I'll say this: If you want to organize to win in Eastern Oregon, you are going to need to reach out to a whole lot of Republicans, since they outnumber Democrats by about 2-1. Klanning up with like-minded folks as you are doing, Chuck, is going to result in a lifetime of being on the wrong end of 35-65 majorities as most voters in this state, and in your district, don't share your prejudices.

It certainly isn't doing the Democratic Party any good.

"Is it the position of Steve's supporters (surely Steve himself is too smart for this) that they don't want the support of anyone who is friends with or has campaigned for Mitch Greenlick because he had the gall to write a post here critical of Steve and defending Jeff?"

I wish I knew what factory you were fabricating these suppositons in, LT. I'd seek to have it shut down. You sure did a lot of extrapolating on this one. Also, I find this question curious: "But how are you going to gain the support of people who at the moment don't know anything about either Jeff or Steve?" Do you REALLY think that the sum total of my support for the Novick campaign involves engaging people in BlueO?

JamesX: "TJ: Oregon Democratic bloggers are involved with Oregon Democratic politics? Outrageous."

I don't think I expressed any outrage. I was just reading a blog comment when I recognized a name. And I found the connection interesting, given that both Greenlick and taoiseach, whoever he/she is seem to have some issues with unfounded charges.

"Well sure. And nobody believes that you or Pat might possibly be interested in silencing Tao. Oh nooooo....

(rolls eyes)"

Kevin: as long as you've been reading LO, have I ever tried to silence anyone?? Since January 06, I believe Carla and I banned one person, and censored comments of one other. In the first case they were being sexually lewd to Carla; in the other they were using strong racial epithets with no context. Hardly the profile of someone interested in squelching dissent.

One thing C and I were always in agreement on, was that we'd have a much easier (and more fun) time taking people head on and exposing their bullshit, than trying to squelch or suppress them. I see no reason to change attitudes towards taoiseach, who is no racist or perv-creep that I can tell, but who isn't that much less transparent, either.

"Is it the position of Steve's supporters (surely Steve himself is too smart for this) that they don't want the support of anyone who is friends with or has campaigned for Mitch Greenlick because he had the gall to write a post here critical of Steve and defending Jeff?"

That's pretty funny. I've helped put together canvasses that included Greenlick's district, bundled and handed out lit with him on it, etc. And I'm a Novick supporter. I know many people who have gone out and walked his precincts and canvassed for him who are undecided, and I'd be happy to have them as Novick supporters. I was just extremely disappointed in how Greenlick and others have handled this particular issue. It was more than being critical of Steve. "Backbiting," "opportunist," and claiming Novick is using GOP Talking points is beyond being "critical." The last time I saw "critical" comments like that towards candidates in a contested partisan primary, it ended with a Democratic Party in shambles... and with Bush as governor.

One thing I think we (PCPs, volunteers of the party, etc.) forget is that we're the face of the Party. When we bully people, trash people, etc., it does indeed reflect poorly on the Party.

But one of my biggest concerns is whether or not someone is using their VAN access to look up and trash supporters of another candidate.

Disclaimer: While I do work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site, I speak only for myself and not the campaign.

Pat, I'm putting my editor hat on - and making this very clear:

You're engaged in some kind of personal tit-for-tag with another blogger. It's a personal fight that no one else cares about. I've tried to track it in the various comments on various blogs, and frankly, I've gotten entirely bored with it. It clearly doesn't interest anyone but the people involved.

Now, if you want to engage in a silly blog war on your own blog, fine. Expend all the pixels you want.

But this is BlueOregon. Here's our mission statement:

It'll be progressive; it'll be smart; it'll be funny; it'll be compelling; it'll be provocative; it'll be unpredictable. It'll be political, but not narrowly so. It'll be a free-ranging social and cultural critique. It'll be by Oregonians and for Oregonians, but not always about Oregon. Above all else, BlueOregon will not be boring.

Your post was none of the above. Except boring.

The stupid comment wars are boring enough in the comments without elevating them to the main posts.

[That would be] Kari Chisholm tiptoeing out the backdoor without looking seriously at what kind of behavior he condones and what he doesn't.

I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about when you say we've "condoned" here. We've certainly never linked to the stupid comment wars you're engaged in. We've linked, pretty regularly, to Beaver Boundary for a simple reason: It's progressive, smart, funny, compelling, provocative, and yes, unpredictable. It's also not boring.

Nice dismissive touch, Kari. I guess you're too important to care. But, weren't you the one lecturing TJ at loaded Oreygun about how it takes more courage to police ethical behavior amongst your own partisans? Yep, pretty sure that was you.

Yup, that was me. And here goes.

Pat, I've had many emails from many people asking me to remove you as a contributor here at BlueOregon. Why? Because your cartoons are rarely funny. But I've defended you. Again and again. "They're getting better," I'd say. "The last one was OK, right?", I'd say.

Well I'm done. We've had 4179 posts here at BlueOregon. And never, not once, has one of our contributors used our front page space to personally go after another blogger.

We're building a movement here. It's bigger than any one person, any one blogger, or even any one candidate. But not for you, Pat. For you, it's all about you, isn't it?

Well, you're done here. I'm removing your access as a regular contributor.

I'm sure some folks will see this as silencing a pro-Novick voice on BlueOregon. But that's not the case. After all, despite my pleading, you've never posted a pro-Novick column.

No, this is the last straw. We nearly pulled your access after the offensive children-in-a-meat-grinder cartoon incident. But once again, I defended you. I'm done.

Pat, I'll encourage you to get your own blog and build your own audience.

Nah, no conspiracy, either. Coincidence, maybe, that now is the moment one decides to start blogging.

By the way, talk about silencing...!

testing

This is why I was testing:

An error occurred... Your comment has not been posted because we think it might be comment spam. If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact the author of this weblog.

Kari, this is why people get paranoid. I can't post my comment because your system thinks it might be "comment spam."

This was what happened the first time, five minutes ago, before I posted the "test" post above.

My unposted comment contains no links at all, and only standard HTML formatting.

Wonder what's going on.

Kevin: as long as you've been reading LO, have I ever tried to silence anyone??

TJ, there's a first time for everything. Past behavior is in no way a guarantee of future behavior. You know this to be true.

One thing C and I were always in agreement on, was that we'd have a much easier (and more fun) time taking people head on and exposing their bullshit, than trying to squelch or suppress them.

This is more of your patented bait & switch tactics. Taking Tao head on and exposing what you saw as his bullshit in NO WAY required you to go along with outting his identity.

By your own definition you are an "ass" for having cooperated with outting a blogger who wanted to maintain a pseudonym.

Stephanie, I have no idea what happened there. Haven't been doing any troll-hunting lately (so our settings haven't changed). Might have been a glitch at TypePad.

Pat, you asked if we condoned Tao's "behavior". If you're asking about the silly blog slapfight you're having with him, then the answer is no. But it's not anything worth getting all hot and bothered about.

I'm looking forward to seeing patmalach.blogspot.com.

Chuck, what comments about Democrats "crossed the line"?

I think the worst thing I said is that the two parties are clanning up more than they used to and that hyper-partisanship is more of a problem than it was 30 years ago. All you need to do is look at the last several legislative sessions in Oregon to see that it's a true statement. But if there's another negative statement that you've taken issue with, feel free to repost it.

Sal doesn't like the 2nd, he'd rather mangle the English language and lie about the court records when the proper course is to amend the offending document.

Another untruth. I'm fine with the gun laws that we have on the books. I'm fine with the second amendment, so long as you follow the full text rather than pick out the half of it that you happen to like.

The courts have upheld basically the only restrictions on guns that I have supported, and on the basis I have given -- military grade weapons and fully automatic weapons have been illegal for about 80 years, and the court upheld restrictions on concealable high capacity semi-automatic weapons in the 1990's.

It's totally unclear to me why you would choose to ignore that history except that it doesn't fit with the extremist notion that you appear to hold -- that guns are a God-given right.

I find it totally bizarre that you would concoct an opposition on my part to your gun resolution. We both know that I spoke with you about the resolution and though I disagreed with you about whether guns are a God-given right, I chose not to oppose it because you believed that it would make a difference in Eastern Oregon.

What tools have I constructed? A statewide list of political donors, with committees they've given to and phone numbers. A statewide list of local labor unions, with contact numbers. A statewide list of veterans organizations, with phone numbers and contacts. A district-wide list of sign locations. Social networking software to help candidates turn out volunteers. I'm currently producing a series of videos for OPAN and a documentary that takes issue with the extremism that has taken hold in our political process. Additionally, I've helped to raise about $30,000 for the Democratic party, excluding my own campaign, and paid for a full-time staffer who helped run a Democratic office for about 6 months.

Kari, this is why people get paranoid. I can't post my comment because your system thinks it might be "comment spam."

C'mon people, take off the damn tin foil hats! I've ran into the same "comment spam" thing a number of times over the years here. Not once did I think that my voice was being silenced. Largely because as a blog owner myself I know how difficult it is to deal with spam without inhibiting participation by interested folks. Which is to say that I knew that the problem was one of software rather than personal animosity.

More to the point, I've never been able to post a comment at Tao's blog. I don't even get a warning. It's just like I never even attempted to comment at all. But I've never once thought that it was some sort of conspiracy to silence me.

Chuck Currie's blog is another one that I routinely got blocked to due possible "comment spam." But again, I know perfectly well that it's a software issue. I've read enough of his stuff to know that he and I agree on a great many issues, so he would have no incentive to try to block my voice. I emailed him a couple times and even that apparently never got through. So I stopped trying many months ago.

The spammers are as savvy as those creating roadblocks to spamming. It's an ongoing battle, as every blogger who has been blogging for any length of time knows.

It's a software thing!

Just so everyone knows--Kari's not alone in his condemnation of this post. BlueOregon was never designed to be all things to all people. What it was designed to be is a reasonable place where reasonable people could discuss issues that matter to Oregonians. Pretty much THE ONLY thing that makes someone "unreasonable" is engaging in personal attacks on others (particularly using profanity or bigotry). Commenters have a far broader latitude than posters because, while this is a collective, BlueOregon does have some standards. Posting personal grudges doesn't meet them.

There are some folks who's comments have been removed for offensive content. These commenters inevitably go nuts claiming that we're the gestapo here--and Kari takes the worst criticism. That's fine--it's part of the discussion we encourage. In fact, comments are one of the best ways to ensure transparency. If we were the gestapo we're accused of being, the dozens of threads accusing us of it wouldn't be available to read (like this one).

But, while we have a responsibility to keep conversations open, we also have some responsibility to the community who don't want to see the comment threads become battlegrounds for flame wars. There's nothing more tedious. So sometimes we have to take action that will inevitably garner us more criticism as heavy-handed and punitive.

All of that's fine. But when you evaluate how BlueOregon is managed, ask the question: would you prefer it to be a place where internecine wars are fought, or one where ideas are exchanged on their merit? We're aiming for the latter, and to the extent we succeed or fail, you should at least understand our intention.

The internets are free; if our mission doesn't satisfy, you can find other sites that will--or, if you can't, you can create one.

Pretty much THE ONLY thing that makes someone "unreasonable" is engaging in personal attacks on others (particularly using profanity or bigotry). Commenters have a far broader latitude than posters because, while this is a collective, BlueOregon does have some standards. Posting personal grudges doesn't meet them.

You mean like this one, Jeff?

Personal attacks? Check. Personal grudges? Check. Posted on BlueO? Check.

Colin -

There's a HUGE difference between some silly blogger slapfight, and a guest column submitted by two state legislators criticizing one US Senate candidate and defending another.

You may not like the latter, but you can't argue that it isn't news.

Kari,

News maybe, but still doesn't live up to the "standards" articulated by Mr. Alworth. I don't know if BlueO was the only "media outlet" that the Greenlick/Nolan letter was submitted to, but it was the only one that printed it. Seems like standards "differ" when someone's dog is in the fight.

DEMONIZING NAV'S IS NO WAY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO GET VOTES!

As a long-time and very passionate NAV I strongly disagree that this is the crux of the whole kerfluffle in any way. Heck, I've got a website and associated blog devoted solely to political Independents.

The crux, IMO, is that Pat would like to silence Tao or damage his credibility. Not because of the NAV thing but because Tao is a vocal Merkley supporter.

Colin... No, standards differ when we're talking about legislators attacking and defending Senate candidates. That's not boring. One blogger slapping around another blogger is boring.

I also want to remind you that this isn't just about this one post. It's about Pat's inability to use his judgment on what's appropriate here at BlueOregon and what's not.

Trishka -- No one has been banned. Pat continues to be welcome to comment, and he's welcome to submit guest columns. We have a MUCH higher standard for who gets unfettered, unmoderated, unedited access to BlueOregon's front page. It's that high standard, I believe, that makes BlueOregon one of the highest trafficked local lefty blogs in the nation.

I, too, have experienced the spam filter's extra verification layer (a captcha test). It tends to come up when I post a short comment with a link in it, though I think it also has to do with accessing BlueO from a new IP address.

My comment contained no links and I was not offered the "captcha" check. Just told that I could not post because it might be comment spam - I pasted the whole message above.

"TJ: Pat is no more silenced than you or I am."

He's at the same level we are now, but given that he used to have posting access and now does not, that's being silenced.

Colin, Kari pretty much captured what I would have said, but I'll sign off on his analysis.

Stephanie--this happens from time to time. Sometimes it happens to me when I'm commenting ON MY OWN POST, which really ticks me off. That's the problem with third-party software. I wouldn't suspect darker motives, though--Typepad is behind that stuff.

so, kari, are you not prepared to denounce taoiseach's behaviour then?

and as such, giving tacit approval?

WTF???

Is this supposed to be the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution? Should we all gather in a circle and demand self-criticism for the harboring of anti-revolutionary tendencies or some such pantload?

Kari is not responsible for comments or content on another blog.

Kari is one of a group of people who are responsible for the content of this blog, Blue Oregon. That's it as far as I'm concerned.

I really hate rhubarb pie and if Kari likes rhubarb pie, it is not an indicator of questionable ethics. It's just......uninteresting.

Is he concealing information about himself and/or his position that needs to be disclosed?

This from someone using the alias "LemmingCrats Suck"

Back when Beaver Boundary started, there seemed to be consensus that Taoiseach was female. Is there any evidence about the new suggestion?

I wonder if it means anything that T has chosen a handle making self "prime minister" in reference to a parliamentary system. Such a system of course involves a kind of programmatic party discipline generally not typical of U.S. parties, though the RP has come closer in recent years, & esp. not the DP.

I'm not sure I understand the objection to requiring delegates to vote for the victor of a primary at the convention, at least in some set number of rounds of voting or until released by a candidate. Or if DPO splits its convention votes proportionally in conventions, what would be wrong with requiring the same delegates for specific candidates. Should those selecting convention delegates be allowed to overturn the results of a primary? If so, why have one?

LaRouchites are well-known as dishonest entryists and personality cultists. If they weren't willing to restrict choice of delegates to the candidate nominated by the primary (or the distribution of votes among candidates if that's how it works), clearly they were in entryist mode. It does not sound as if they were excluded, but excluded themselves by unwillingness to abide by primary results.

The worldview of LaRouche and his organization, as reflected in their newspaper, is a bizarre if on certain levels fascinating crypto-fascist fantasy, in which among other things the Queen of England figures as the head of an international illegal drug promotion conspiracy. Making it difficult for them to foist those unrepresentive views on the DPO is justified and proper, as it would be in the case of say David Duke-ites.

Personally, I don't see how Tao has any "responsibility" to disclose his or her identity (I also don't see where anyone has actually shown any evidence behind the supposed "outing", tao could very well be Ireland's head of government for all I know). When you go to Beaver Boundary, you know that the writer is more or less anonymous. If you think that makes Tao's opinion less valid, DON'T READ IT. It's that simple. Tao can write whatever he/she wants and let the pieces fall where they may, it's your job to evaluate whether or not it's worthwhile to read. People have reasons why they don't want to display their full identity on the internet, and that's just fine. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about it when you yourself use a psuedonym.

As for misusing dpo resources, my understanding is that voter registration information is public record. Anyone can look up that I am a registered democrat, and then they can use that information for whatever they want. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, I'm proud of my involvement in the democratic party. And I've yet to see evidence that Tao used the van.

Trishka... I don't have any idea if either Tao or Pat should be "denounced" for their silly comment slapfight on a half-dozen other blogs. I stopped reading that silliness a long time ago.

As best as I understand it, Tao looked up Pat's voter registration (which you can get by picking up the phone and calling County Elections - no "DPO resources" required) and then made some comments. And then Pat made some more comments. Blah blah blah.

I'm so past giving a shit about this idiotic and childish pillowfight. Who cares?

And that's my point. Nobody else cares. Which is why it didn't belong on this blog.

Do I support anonymous blogging? No, I don't. In fact, the only other time we've booted a contributor from BlueOregon, it was because "she" refused to use her real name.

We have high expectations here, and Pat failed to meet them. I'm sorry this had to play out in public, but that's that.

I'll recap, from two years ago:

* BlueOregon is about open discussion and debate. Our goal is to be a place for progressives to gather, though the occasional conservative is certainly welcome. Even you, Lars. (Of course, we're still waiting for someone to launch RedOregon!) * The idea of "progressive" is a loose one. We are certainly interested, as we said at launch, in having a wide range of voices - from urban sophisticates to gun-truck-and-dog Democrats; from radical vegetarian leftists to cranky government skeptics. We want to reflect the full diversity of Oregon progressivism - socio-economically, geographically, ideologically, ethnically, and beyond. * We are explicitly NOT about shutting down debate or discussion. We're NOT about "the party line." It is legitimate to disagree. It is legitimate for our commenters to disagree with our contributors. We will NOT delete, censor, or edit comments because we disagree with their content. * Of course, we will delete comment spam (porn, mortgages, offshore gambling, etc.) immediately and without notice. * Site admins (not contributors) may edit comments that are wildly off-topic. In those cases, we'll delete only the off-topic portions, but leave an editorial note that it happened. Site admins may edit comments that contain copyrighted material that is cut-and-pasted whole. When possible, we'll drop in a link instead and we'll always leave an editorial note that it happened. We will not delete comments without some kind of notice. * We expect that everyone who posts and comments on BlueOregon to be respectful of the commons. As a free (as in beer) resource, it's important that everyone who participates doesn't over-participate - excluding other voices either through quantity or tone of posts. That kind of over-participation can result in a tragedy of the commons - and this resource will no longer be free (as in speech). * We also expect that everyone who posts and comments on BlueOregon be respectful of each other. There's just no reason to get into name-calling and ad hominem personal attacks. Oregon's a small place, and you never know when you might meet someone in person. * Finally, effective Monday, none of contributors will continue to post anonymously. With access comes responsibility, and writing over a real name ensures that our writers are accountable for their words. Our commenters may still post over whatever screen name they'd like. We only ask that you use the same one consistently - so that readers may follow your thoughts from comment to comment. * Our responsibility as publishers is to manage this resource for everyone's benefit. We make editorial decisions almost every day - not to censor or restrict ideas, but to maintain quality. Just as a newspaper makes choices about which editorials appear and which don't and which columnists are hired and which are not, we'll do the same when selecting our regular contributors and guest columns. We will continue to seek to have diverse and interesting progressive voices. * If these guidelines are too much for anyone hanging out here at BlueOregon, I recommend launching your own blog. It's easy and it's free (as in beer). We recommend Blogger.com and Typepad.com. You can be publishing all you want in about five minutes.

Nick is right. All you have to do to verify someone's registration is to call the county elections department where they live. Tell the clerk the name, and they'll look it up. On the spot. It's real easy.

Users of The VAN (or VoteBuilder as it is called now that the DNC sponsors it) in Oregon usually get their access from the DPO. We require that people sign an agreement stating that they will use it appropriately. (For example, you can't sell the numbers to your local telemarketer.) Now, that doesn't really stop people from looking up other people, and I'm not sure that would fall under "misuse."

sweet jesus, i lost track of all the pissing matches going on in here. unbelievable. it even includes temporary Democrats telling committed Democrats how to run their party. sheesh.

i agree with Kari: blogger-on-blogger is boring. masturbatory, in fact. (not to imply that masturbation is, by nature, boring or anything.) bloggers attacking bloggers is rarely worth reading because there is rarely substance. i think this post started out with a valid point -- thought police kind of thing -- but i had no idea it was really blogger-on-blogger action (with no indication at all that either was a hot babe). but then the comments -- oy.

I have to chime in with my opinion in general. The pissing matches on BO have been getting worse and worse on BO for the last few months and it's clear to me that neither Kari or his assistant want to address the problem of what is general called "flame wars". In fact, Kari has encouraged it by allowing his assistant to post a thread calling Measure 50 opponents "trolls" which I found very offensive. They also failed to condone (and in fact Nick participated in it as well) harsh language and nasty comments about anyone who dare oppose Measure 50.

Well I'm done too. This is my last post. I've commented on BO for several years and even written some guest columns. I'll be removing myself from the Lefty Blogs as well since that is essentially run by Kari as well.

But who the FUCK really cares anyway?

David, one more time: That post never said that Measure 50 opponents were "trolls". Rather, it was a post directed at the large number of comments were were getting from VIRGINIA and NORTH CAROLINA. Yes, we were - in fact - getting hit with tobacco company trolls.

The pissing matches have been getting worse. Just like in spring 2006. It's primary season. I can't wait for it to get over.

And finally, and it's a somewhat-semantic but somewhat-meaningful note... Nick is not my 'assistant'. He's a BlueOregon Fellow, an intern if you will.

Had you just said that my cartoons suck and you don't want to publish them anymore, I could have respected that.

Actually, I didn't think they sucked. I kind of liked them. They didn't all rock my world, but I found several to be quite funny. But I was already getting so much negative feedback - via email, on the phone, in person - that I had planned to start paying closer attention.

And then, you dropped this stupid post.

How may comments so far? 81. ... I think that says bundles about whether or not there's interest in this post.

Ha. Now you are being funny. Don't mistake comment volume for interest level or agreement. Some 90% of our readers have never commented.

During that episode you seemed to be of two minds. For public view, you raked me over the coals.

What?! I did no such thing. Check the record. Here and here.

One more time kari. Tao claimed that I was "not even a Democrat." I was forced to correct that error (an error made in service of a malicious purpose) and said indeed I am a Democrat. At which point Tao insulted me and said my party membership made her sad.

Do you even see how this is just some idiotic slapfight? Read it again. He said, she said, he said, she said... NO ONE CARES if some blogger mischaracterized your party registration! Who gives a damn? It's between the two of you.

If you follow this thread, Kari, you'll notice your first comment simply attempted to dismiss this post with the "spat" spin. You made no mention of me losing my posting privileges. That didn't happen until after I responded to you in the comments section.

That's right, Pat. I tried to tone it down, dismiss it with the dismissiveness it deserved, and try and avoid yet another stupid comment war. But instead, failing to see how stupid this all is, you elevated the argument, and engaged in yet another personal attack. And another, and another, and another.

Start your own blog. Have fun. I'm done here.

The 90% number was a site-wide number. So we're on the same page there.

Then you told the Oregonian reporter you were thinking about revoking my posting privileges.

Yeah, and then I didn't, did I? Ugh.

G'night.

I went to Beaver boundary for that "welcome to the party" salute following a link on BlueO's front page.

One last thing: You keep repeating that line as if it matters somehow. Just because we link to a particular post or article somewhere doesn't mean that we agree with everything that writer has ever written or will write either on their blog or somewhere else.

We link to particular posts because we think they might be interesting for our readers. End of story.

"Actually TJ, I sent you a story for posting on LO back on 2/8/07. I asked you to post it or at least get back to me. It was about Ron Chinn's comments regarding students with disabilities. Never heard word one from you. Guess that's not censorship..."

You guess right. That's called editorial control. Only the government can truly censor anything.

Comments like this make it clear that even regular readers of BlueOregon don't really understand how little control any single person--Kari included--exercise here:

The pissing matches on BO have been getting worse and worse on BO for the last few months and it's clear to me that neither Kari or his assistant want to address the problem of what is general called "flame wars".

Nick is the opposite of an assistant. With almost no input, and nothing like what you'd call "oversight," Nick manages to keep a huge amount of information flowing through the site. It has been enormously relieving to me, and I suspect Kari too, to have someone who can carry the load. Slag Kari and me all you want (well, especially Kari), but give Nick his props--he's doing yeoman's work here.

I'd like to add one other thing to this mix. In both the initial spat that provoked Malach's post and many of the comments here and on other blogs, people characterize what another person's motivation is. They can therefore come to conclusions like:

You have a dark side, mon frer, and it ain't so honest.

I don't know very many people who write in the comments. I'm by nature a recluse, so I fail to get out to events where I'd get to meet a lot of folks. So I have little insight into the (mis?)-characterizations flying around. However, I do know Kari, and as a co-editor of BlueOregon, I am in contact with him about the site. That's why when I read these kinds of comments, they seem so plainly laughable to me.

It's easier to compose a pretty story that fits available facts when you have precious little facts available. We can make up stories about other people that seem convincing enough to fool ourselves and other readers. It is the basis of most flame wars.

There are times when right-wing trolls try to mess with our conversation, but for the most part, we're all on the same team. It would be an interesting exercise, rather than assuming someone is a dark liar, that the person is a valued friend. We tell ourselves different stories about our friends than our enemies and arrange those data points differently. Or even to assume we don't know what the person's motivation is--which, of course, is the truth.

Just a thought.