The Texas Cloverleaf reviews proposed changes to the city of Denton’s charter that will be on the November ballot.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notices Rick Perry has had a busy week what with Channeling Glenn Beck and messing up a wrongful execution investigation.

TXsharon had a hard time keeping up with all the fracking, moving, shaking and gasping for toxic air in the Barnett Shale this week so there is a BS recap that includes a recently released URGENT alert for all current and former residents of DISH–formerly Clark–Texas to complete and submit a health survey.

Bay Area Houston wonders what $640 a frickin hour buys you in Houston Mayor’s race.

If a Republican holds an on-line event, will they properly provision for the people who want to join it? McBlogger’s pretty sure they won’t and isn’t terribly surprised that they blamed it on the nefarious actions of others.

At Texas Vox, Citizen Andy fills you in on the Senate incarnation of the climate change bill. Waxman-Markey, meet Kerry-Boxer.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the Gov. Perry’s latest outrage. It’s another example of why Texas needs accountability in our state’s government, Perry’s pride and the Willingham case.

This week on Left of College Station, Teddy writes about why he gets up early on Saturday mornings to escort patients at Planned Parenthood; guest blogger Litia writes about the frustrations they fell while trying to get students to participate in class at Texas A&M. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.

XicanoPwr is encouraging people to vote for Prop 4, the “national research university” proposition, on Nov 3. Texas currently has three flagship universities – The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and Rice University – compared to states such as California, with nine, and New York, with seven. If passed, it would allow seven “emerging universities” – Texas Tech, University of Houston, University of North Texas, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Texas at El Paso and University of Texas at San Antonio – tap into a $500 million education fund to help them be part of the elite three and “achieve national prominence” as a major research university.

WhosPlayin’ has video from Denton County’s “Donkeyfest” where candidates John Sharp for U.S. Senate and Neil Durrance for U.S. Congress spoke.

Off the Kuff has a simple suggestion for how Governor Perry and Williamson County DA John Bradley can counter the perception that Perry’s elevation to Chair of the Texas Forensic Sciences Commission was a blatantly political move designed to bury the findings of the Cameron Todd Willingham case: Reschedule the meeting that the Commission was going to hold before Perry’s maneuver.

Neil at Texas Liberal offered a post this week about the famous Dogs Playing Poker paintings. These paintings have been around for more than 100 years now. How many of our blog posts will last in any meaningful respect beyond next week?

The Doctorate of Shadetree Psychology is hereby awarded to PDiddie of Brains and Eggs, for his compelling dissertation that Rick Perry is a sociopath.

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw gives Senators Hutchison and Cornyn a chance to put up or shut up . If government health care is so horrible, so “socialist”, give up your government coverage. Read the rest here: Senators Hutchison and Cornyn: Get Us What You Have or Give Up Yours.

For our Third Annual Texan of the Year Awards, the Texas Progressive Alliance elected to not only name a Texan of the Year–the Texan or Texans who contributed the most to the cause of the Progressive movement in 2007–but also recognize other Texans whose contributions were also important to the Progressive cause and worthy of recognition.

The Texan of the Year will be announced next Friday, December 14. Between now and then, the Texas Progressive Alliance will announce its list of Texans whose contributions to the progressive cause it believed worthy of special recognition. This begins today, with the announcement of the Texas Progressive Alliance’s Silver Stars. Starting Monday, four additional “Gold Stars” will be announced followed by the TOY on Friday.

Without further ado, here are the 2007 Texas Progressive Alliance Silver Stars (in alphabetical order):

Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski. It has been said that persistence is as much a virtue as patience. Inasmuch as that is so, it is also true that persistence pays off. In the case of Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski, persistence also saved thousands of Texas children from a certain Hell at the Texas Youth Commission. For nearly two years, starting in 2005, Burzynski investigated allegations of sexual misconduct in Texas’ juvenile prison system. He was rebuffed by state authorities, local prosecutors, and even the United States Department of Justice. In spite of these rebuffs, Burzynski continued to push his case–investigating, making noise, not letting go, and never taking ‘no’ for an answer. The end result? It broke open one of the largest criminal justice scandals in the history of Texas and brought forward a flood of legislative reforms, and victims. For this and more, the Texas Progressive Alliance is pleased to confer upon Ranger Brian Burzynski a 2007 Texas Progressive Alliance Silver Star.

Hank Gilbert. When Hank Gilbert’s race for agriculture commissioner ended last November, he kept on going. During his 2006 campaign, Gilbert promised Texans that–win or lose–he would continue to fight against toll roads, mandatory animal ID legislation, and international corporations that threatened the citizens of Texas. Gilbert organized a Texas Independence Day March on Austin. Working with farmers, ranchers, Democratic activists, and disillusioned landowners, brought nearly 1,000 Texans to Austin to testify against the Trans Texas Corridor at a session of the Texas Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security the day before the march. Thousands more Texans showed up the next day to continue the fight. Gilbert has been instrumental in forming a statewide umbrella organization of anti-toll groups to continue the fight against toll-enabling legislation. As a director for Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, he continues to travel the state and nation speaking out against the takeover of taxpayer funded infrastructure by private interests. For this and more, the Texas Progressive Alliance proudly names Hank Gilbert recipient of a 2007 Texas Progressive Alliance Silver Star.

Congressman Ciro Rodriguez. In 2006, Ciro Rodriguez was the “come back kid” of Texas Politics, winning a seat in congress after a runoff about the time the Texan of the Year for 2006 was announced. This year, Rodriguez took office as part of the first Democratic congress in nearly a generation, and has served his San Antonio-based district honorably. His race is considered one of national Republicans’ top targets, although Rodriguez’s constituent services and his support from Democratic Leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will no doubt help him retain the district.

Texas Bloggers Who Made A Difference. This year, for the first time, Texas Bloggers determined that some of their own were worthy of special recognition for their work during 2007: John Cobarruvias (Bay Area Houston Blog); Vince Leibowitz (Capitol Annex); Edmundo “Xicano Power” Rocha (XicanoPwr); and Sharon Wilson (TxSharon of BlueDaze). A note on each blogger:

John Cobarruvias has almost single handedly changed the way Texas legislators use and report their campaign/officeholder expenses. Because he has held their feet to the fire through his Spending Campaign Cash series, organizing a group of volunteers to file complaints against offending legislators and urging media to report on spending abuses, legislators have cleaned up their acts. The Texas Ethics Commission has issued written reminders to legislators about the very problems with reporting expenses that Cobarruvias uncovered.

Vince Leibowitz. As the 80th Session of the Texas Legislature ended in turmoil–with parliamentarians resigning, a walk-out, and two stooges of House Speaker Tom Craddick on the dais as officers of the Texas House, Leibowitz decided that the whole story of those final days wasn’t being told and started digging. Through public information requests, he uncovered a sheaf of documents from House Speaker Tom Craddick’s office that helped piece together exactly what happened in those final hours. No main-stream media outlet had dug into this, and Leibowitz’s work broke new ground and proved that House Speaker Tom Craddick’s actions were the premeditated acts of a Speaker on the edge.

Edmundo Rocha. Blending lends heavy-handed social critiques, local and national politics, and a heaping dose of common sense in his blog, Edmundo Rocha tackles heavy topics like immigration, teenage pregnancy, racial and gender politics, and backs up everything with a sense of style and spirit. With a loyal and unwavering audience (his Texan of the Year nomination, in fact, was suggested in the comments of a blog by one of Edmundo’s readers), Rocha has rapidly become one of the state’s most prominent Latino bloggers. No issue is too tough, and none taboo for this blogger.

Sharon Wilson. Most Texans don’t know what the Texas Railroad Commission is or does. In 2007, one Texas blogger changed that: Sharon Wilson. Wilson’s reporting on the injection well drilling in the Barnett Shale region and its impact on the water quality and the environment in Wise County and surrounding areas has been exceedingly important to bringing wider attention to the dangers this practice poses across the state. Wilson has nearly single-handedly stood up to large oil companies and made the companies and state agencies–including the Texas Railroad Commission–take notice. Relentless in her drive to educate the public and elected officials to the damage being done to the Texas environment, Wilson’s investigative reporting and blogging is worthy of recognition.

Texas Legislative Study Group. The policy clearinghouse for Progressives, the Texas Legislative Study Group is full of unsung heroes. Policy analysts who help Legislators keep up with the more than 50 bills that come up a day in the Texas House, the Texas Legislative Study Group and its policy analysts could perhaps be considered the most important behind-the-scenes players in the legislative process when it comes to safeguarding progressive principles. Legislators carry their reports around on the House floor like bibles. Their arguments against the Appropriations Bill, some versions of Jessica Law, and the Castle Doctrine were masterful. Also important to note is that the brilliant minds behind the work of the LSG aren’t aged policy veterans, but rather among the best Texas minds of more recent generations, “Generation X” in particular. The men and women who daily toil at the LSG are indeed the men and women who will shape Texas public policy for generations into the future.

TexBlog PAC. Started by just a handful of Texas progressive bloggers, TexBlog PAC has harnessed the energy of the online community. In a state with one of the largest netroots communities in America–and the most vibrant progressive blogosphere, TexBlog PAC is poised to build on victories bloggers helped happen in 2004 and 2006. Having already raised over $10,000 in its initial months, the PAC will play a key role for Democrats as we try to take back the House in 2008.

David Van Os. Following his defeat in the 2006 Attorney General’s race, Van Os made good on his promise to “keep fighting ‘em on ice.” From helping groups like TURF in their fight against the private takeover of government infrastructure to helping workers who were intimidated when nooses started showing up in their workplace (securing the removal of both the noose and the supervisor), Van Os hasn’t stopped fighting for working Texans. In addition, from musicians to probation officers to non-profit workers, Van Os has continued his life’s work on behalf of the working men and women of Texas.

State Representative Mike Villarreal. In 2003, many were ready to write Mike Villarreal’s political obituary. Fast forward to 2007, and Villarreal has become one of the Progressive leaders in the Texas House of Representatives. Authoring legislation that would have made created contribution limits for political candidates and an independent redistricting commission, Villarreal took a lead with these progressive issues. In addition, Villarreal took a lead on GLBT rights by authoring HB 900, which would have provided protections from discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression for the GLBT community. This, coupled with the compromise he sought to proffer when Republicans tried to take over the House and suspend the constitutional provision concerning the consideration of legislation early in the session, make Villarreal worthy of recognition.

It is human nature to want to provide value to another person. It makes us feel validated and worthy of being involved with another. To be honest, validation of a persons self-worth is a key aspect of being human. However, no matter how secure you are with yourself, everyone loves a bit of validation, and of course, there are always the extremes, those who need it more than others.

While it is easy to seek the comfort among friends, the truth is I don’t make the habit of asking my friends for advice. I don’t like to sound “needy,” nor do I ask my friends to solve my problems. Basically, for me, my post was just a vehicle to get some things off of my chest, so I can contemplate about it and move on.

I know I haven’t blogged about my personal life or weaved my personal experience into my post. I haven’t because that was not the reason I started this blog. But honestly, I had no clue about this whole blogging thing or what I wanted to write about. However, I did have a reason why I wanted to start one. I started this blog for two reasons, I felt there was a lack of Xicano/a representation within the mainstream blogosphere and two I felt (and still feel) that a large majority of mainstream bloggers wrote in a short and sweet cookie-cutter approach to blogging, which meant linking to some blog or mainstream media article without comment, or a partisan spin on a news event. And because a majority of Americans are infamous for short attention spans, this approach was and still is very appealing to people who are in a constant need for fresh information. However, deciding with approach is best is still up for debate.

I decided to write long post because I wanted to be different. After assessing my personal strengths, I found out I very good at understanding and working with abstract concepts. I have the ability to see patterns where others see complexity. I’m also very good at making intelligent sound judgments. Given all of this, I was unwilling to sit around the house feeling sorry for myself, I needed to take advantage of my strengths on a daily basis and the best way was to start my own blog. I wanted to use my skills to give readers, especially Xicanas/os, information they normally weren’t aware of or typically read on your mainstream blogs; and I also wanted to provide analysis they wouldn’t have thought of. I was tired being told what to think or being told that what I think goes against current world-view. It’s much more valuable to think for yourself, gather as much information as possible, and refine your views as new information challenges them.

On February 2008, three months from today it will be two years since I started my own blog; and on this month, one year ago I decided to get my own domain. And all through out I could’ve easily stopped blogging. However, I have seen a lot of changes Latino/asphere – or as we call it the Brownosphere – during these last two years. From what started as a tiny clique of blogger, our little niche has grown. There were more blogs to read, more opportunities to get to know people’s thoughts and opinions.

We are starting to get attention and some more than others by the mainstream media. It was fun to watch how this community is growing that originally started from the tiny clique I belonged too. Yet, if you look at the bigger picture, the blogging world is not separate from what happens in real life.

No matter how much you much try to keep your personal life out of your blog, in reality you can’t. When you read personal blogs, it’s like getting to know a person. You get the know their likes and dislikes, their views you agree with and views you disagree, their hobbies… You cannot help but share a part of yourself on their online diaries. Just like the same way we make friend in real life, we have the choice on which blogs we read and which blog we avoid.

In the end, your little circle of friends has spread beyond your physical limits, because the Internet has provided you with the vehicle to read about diverse life experiences and ideas in a sort of uninhibited way.

However, there comes a time a blogger comes on a blogging impasse and is faced to ask themselves, Why do I blog? What is this blog for? I am not doing this because I am wanting to drive traffic, thou validation of who we are, is what drives almost everything we do. Nor is this a good bye cruel world post. This post is to reaffirm why I began in the first place.

I don’t make money from blogging, nor has it drove the hordes of Latino civil rights agencies, alternative media, political parties, think tanks or consulting firms knocking down my door to come work for them, yet they do read my blog. I blog for myself but hope others will find value in my writing. Throughout my life, people always had low expectations of me. In high school I was told I shouldn’t consider applying at a top notch university – yet, I proved them wrong. When I was accepted into grad school, I was placed on conditional status and once again I surprised them. The same thing occurred for each place I worked at, but my drive to prove people wrong, I ended up winning employee of the month for two months in a roll. So once again, I fell I am being challenged, however, because of my personal strengths, I will rise up again.

With little over a month left till the end of 2007, I have come to realization, this blog needs a bit of a reboot, a need to approach things on a different angle. I am not talking about focusing on traffic or bringing in ad revenues. Although it tempting to go after potential revenue by adding adsense to my site or be part of a BlogAds group, but truthly, there something about a blog that is overpowered by too many ads, after a while, the blog starts looking like a NASCAR. Then again, to each its own, I guess.

I would like become a leading authority on the immigration issue, not really. However, I would for more people to see that I am more than just an immigrant advocate, and what I write is considered useful and worthwhile, other than just immigration issues. I have written on a variety of topics, such as identity politics, NAFTA, and investigative reporting.

I know the traffic and subscriber count has doubled since last year, but the number of comments I get now is about the same. My goal is to try to connect more without relegating to “comment baiting.” One thought is expanding opening this site to include new voices. The truth is, it is hard to get a blog off the ground. It takes a lot of patience to kept to writing what I believed in, especially when you hardly see anybody commenting on your blog. That being said, for those who are flirting with the idea of blogging or thinking about blogging again, I am inviting you to use my blog as a safe place to test the waters and your ready to step off the platform go at it alone, you will have already cultivated an audience. And know, you have free reign on whatever topic you to post. If you interesting in displaying your art work, great! Interesting in podcasting, perfect! Interested in discussing a topic I have not cover, fantastic! All that I ask of you is that you feel passionate on whatever you choose to do.

So why am I doing this? In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire wrote, “As individuals or as peoples, by fighting for the restoration of our humanity we will be attempting the restoration of true generosity. And this fight, because of the purpose given it, will actually constitute an act of love.” In order to accomplish this we move beyond our comfort zone “and risk an act of love” and for this reason this invitation is an open invitation to any person regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation and religious belief. The name of this blog will not change because the reasoning behind my idea to show our tolerance towards cultural diversity. It is hard to perceive how African Americans can be liberated without Xicanos/as being liberated, or how Xicanas/os can be liberated without Native Americans being liberated, or how Native Americans can be liberated without Asian Americans being liberated, or Asian Americans be liberated without working class whites being liberated too.

Compared to many mainstream bloggers within the progressive blogosphere, I am a relatively a new blogger. However, in this short time, I have learned that the sense of disconnection we often feel is based on our distortions of our humanity. Yet, among the all this chaos, we still manage to find comfort among those of us who share a common political dream for justice.

I enjoy writing because it makes me think, and learn, and it is a constant reminder to look beyond the world around me. I blog because I want others, the world, to hear what I have to say. While there are some who feel blogging are just words on the screen, to me, it is more than a series of letters put together formulating a sentence. Much, much more than that. To arrange those words to create something, it is a radical dream of many colors that stirs an emotional response from another human being to strive consistently to live with the integrity of our minds, hearts, bodies, and spirits. This not just a beautiful thing, its an act of love. The kind of love Freire talked about.

So why do I blog? I blog because it is my ethical responsibility to give a voice to the children who are now parentless and/or forced to take on the role of parent to their siblings because their parents have been deported or locked away in some concentration camp. I blog because it is my ethical responsibility to uncompromisingly confront the power structure within the progressive blogosphere that continues to oppress women and people of color. I blog because it is my ethical commitment to humanity.

I blog because I can.

A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. “Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this,” she told me. “We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment… they need. I couldn’t do that.” I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and… suspicious! Proof that you just can’t trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted “Wanker of the Day” award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for “stalking” Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a “water boy for the right wing” and many other riffs unfit to print.

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn’t move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed – especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful – and politically successful – tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.

And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party’s bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh’s show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment. The same could happen to the Democrats.

Klein’s main point is that he is concerned that “the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful – and politically successful – tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered.” I feel Klein’s observation of the so-called progressive blogosphere is very accurate. The blogosphere has become more of a place where one can find hate-filled rhetoric in the land of he said-she said. Before I go on, I like to make this clear. I do understand that Joe Klein is somewhat of a hypocrite in a “pot calling the kettle black” kind of way. But this post is not about Klein, the purpose of this post is the subject of his article – the hate-filled rhetoric that has dominated the left.

The sad reality of it all, there are people on the Left who do attack others not because they disagree with their point of view, but who actually enjoy watching the other person crumble with fear. And those who are committing these offenses are not realizing the sense of despair that is being felt throughout the certain communities and communities of color who are attempting to navigate through this crazy world of ours towards a more just society. Because of this, I am compelled to speak out on the realities that are taking place in the liberal blogosphere.

I find it ironic that Klein’s article came out during the recent Brittney Gilbert vs. Jesus General dust up. I have written and rewritten this post so many times it is not funny. I had planned to provide a full break down on the sequence of events on how we got to this mess we are in now, but something inside me kept me from doing it. I just did not feel right. Instead, I will just speak from the heart. For those who would like a good break down, check out Jim McCulloch’s post, “The strange case of General Patriotboy and his lynch mob,” at Stone Bridge. I think, his post is well balanced and easy to follow. What really bothered me about all this, the whole debate was intertwined with racist and misogynistic remarks that would make any causal observer feel like they were watching an old Jerry Springer episode. Even worse was the people’s inability to step back from their A-list hero-worshiping and look at the bigger picture. In retrospect, the dispute represents the current patriarchal and racially based social structure.

While Brittney Gilbert, who used to blog for Nashville is Talking meant well as tried to expose the racist tendencies of a known blogger called Smantix by posting an excerpt of his post – Teaching Libs a Lesson – that denigrated the recently deceased liberal blogger Steve Gilliard, she unwittingly reinforced racism. Granted she did posts a lot of stuff without much comment, in which many of her readers (both new and regular readers) would have to have common sense or the initiative to figure out the context and meaning of the post themselves. However, Gilbert had already set precedence by commenting on stuff done by Smantix and his views in the past and unfortunately, she neglected to do so this time and this is how she unwittingly reinforced racism. Racism is a system that values whites over people of color and therefore, it is arrogant to assume that every reader of any blog will get the “subtlety” of every headline or every post written. For example, suppose I were to move to Nashville and I wanted to know about the local blog scene around my new town, being a minority, it would have been easy for me to assume there was an Anti-African American tinge to that blog. However, this doesn’t mean Gilbert is a racist, it would be an error for me to judge her based on this one post. Unfortunately, in this sound-bite world of ours, this is how people are judged.

Here is where I have the biggest problem; it has to do with the way Gilbert was treated. Not only was it misogynist, but also it was a total reinforcement of the patriarchal and racially based social structure we live in. Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease that is assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation. As pro-feminist male, it is more than just recognizing it, but a need to speak out against it because mere recognition of an injustice being done is not enough to end it.

As Paolo Friere wrote in his classic Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

The oppressor is in solidarity with the oppressed only when he stops regarding the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labor – when he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love. True solidarity is found only in the plenitude of this act of love… To affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce.

Such “acts of love” are possible. Being Latino, not only do I have an insight in identifying racist behavior taking place within the Latina/o community but also, I am also able to identify the subtle sexist behavior that also takes place because, as a male, I understand the male privilege that has been given to me by society’s patriarchal rules. Although there are some who assume by not being involved in the oppression of women that should be enough, but the reality is, that is nothing more but passivity. As bell hooks once said, “if we don’t change our own consciousness, we cannot change our own actions or demand change from others.”

In a recent conversation with Brownfemipower about ally building, she pointed out how the Zapatista movement was redefining the rigid gender roles that are put on men and women. The way this came about was the willingness to listen and bring down the sexist power structure. After listening to Marcela Lagarde, a Mexican feminist scholar and a former member of Mexico’s House of Representatives (2003-2006), on the marginalization of women in revolutionary movements in Latin America, subcomandante Marcos contacted Feminist International Radio Endeavour (FIRE), a woman-produced radio/Internet broadcasting station, who put him in touch with Lagarde. After the two finished talking, Lagarde agreed to serve as their Gender Advisor to the movement. It is this type of ally building I feel Brownfemipower was talking about and one that we, as men, should model after.

The discriminatory practices within the progressive blogosphere have its roots in a male-dominated culture society. This patriarchal culture does not tolerate freedom and democracy or equal rights of men and women, because it would threaten their leadership position. What really broke my heart was reading comments after comments of people both men and women pulling out the lowest blows they could muster in an effort to shut Britney and her allies up. It clearly showed that they had little empathy for women. The minute JG sent his letter to her bosses and to the sponsors; it became misogynistic because it was for the purpose to damage Gilbert’s reputation. They did nothing more but took the focus off her pain and placed it onto JG. As a male, it was his privilege to have all the attention on his pain. During that week, JG and his followers felt they had done nothing wrong in what they did to Britney – as it was no big deal, but what do not understand, it is they who took her power away, her voice, and her personhood. In the end, JG is still employed while the other is not. Just because she resigned that does not take away the fact that the onslaught heavily influenced her decision.

How are their actions any different from the people who damaged the reputation of the woman who was unable to get a job because of the online postings that contained offensive content and personal attacks on her? What about Kathy Sierra who canceled her speaking engagements because she was afraid to leave her house? Or Jill Filipovic of Feministe and her situation with AutoAdmin? Or Brownfemipower? Or nubian? or MarisaCat? Or the thousands of women who are vilified by their allies and non-allies in public and who have no shame in making violent threats against them? NOT A FUCKING GOD DAMN THING!

I have been involved in politics for a long time and I have been using the Internet back in 1992. In those 10+ years, nothing has changed when it comes to attacking women on the Internet. It is easy to dismiss all this as being BS and state that people should find a way to grow a tougher skin and just accept the fact that we live in a world full of mudslinging and vitriol. Do we really want to live in a heartless world where people become indifferent with one another?

The reality is words and ideas are damaging, no matter how tough someone claims to be. The attacks from the left border on the edge what the folks on the right have no problem doing. When it comes to attacking female bloggers, it is easy to hide behind the keyboard to begin their onslaught on the female psyche as they attack a woman’s physical appearance and sexuality. Worse, are the attacks by men on their self-worth as to why they are still single or, why their relationships are failing with overt misogynistic comments on how “ugly” they are to get a man or how they are too pretty to be taken seriously or how they should “put out” more for their husbands or boyfriends. When that does not work, it becomes easy for us to start labeling them a bitch, whore, vendida, traitor, cunts, ho, ugly.

While it is easy for people like progressive male bloggers like Markos Mousilitas (Daily Kos) to tell women to “develop a thicker skin,” one must really have to wonder about this line of thinking. The problem I have with this line of thinking, people become emotionless and non-caring on issues that should have our attention. As a result, these issues are always kept at a distance. If we don’t see them, they no longer have to care. Truthfully, we are a society that suffers from severe emotional repression. For example, as of this writing, this country has already murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings in a foreign country, it has already imprisoned another hundred of thousands in concentration camps in this country and yet we all know this, but nobody bats an eyelash. We are destroying not only our souls, but also our physical, emotional, and intellectual infrastructure of which we are a part and cannot live without.

It is bad enough men are raised to not to display emotions, now we are forcing women to do same as we tell them to “grow a thicker skin.” By developing this “thicker skin,” all we are doing is maintaining the emotional repression with the intention of denying our deep feelings of hurt and pain, and left to express them through anger and rage. As long as we shield ourselves from actually feeling, we are preventing ourselves from walking a journey of full honesty with all our personal and structural relationships.

By minimize their efforts by asserting a perceived authority about what is considered “right” and “wrong” ways to draw attention to the issues we as people face is not only sexist, but oppressive, especially when it is done by men.

So those who continue to the silence of women and yet glorify democracy is nothing more but a hypocrite and it is they who are hurting our movement, not those who are the voice of the thousands of women who are forced to be silent.

I have this feeling that the demise of Brittney Gilbert and her reason for quitting her job at Nashville is Talking due to a bunch of self-righteous self-aggrandizing faux “progressive” lynch mob is still rippling through blog land.

I have noticed there is a wave negativity spreading though the blogosphere, especially among people of color. This was of negativity have hit me too – feeling sad, feeling scared (who will be next, me?), and feeling defeated. Whenever this occurs, I am usually at a loss for words and the only way I know how to express how I feel about a certain situation is through a song. The only song that comes to mind right now is Don McLean’s American Pie. In fact, I genuinely think this song is very apropos for what is currently now in the blogosphere and in our country.

Initially inspired by his memories of the death of Buddy Holly in 1959, ‘American Pie’ is autobiographical and presents an abstract story of Don McLean’s life from the mid 1950s until when he wrote the song in the late 1960s. It is almost entirely symbolised by the evolution of popular music over these years and represents a change from the lightness of the 1950s to the darkness of the late 1960s. This is also very symbolic of changing America during this era. In Don’s life the transition from light (the innocence of childhood) to the darker realities of adulthood probably started with the death of Buddy Holly and culminated with the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 and the start of a more difficult time for America. In this 4 year period, Don moved from a fairly idyllic childhood existence, through the shock and subsequent harsh realities of his father’s death in 1961, to his decision in 1963 to quit Villanova University to pursue his dream and become a professional singer.

I feel it is time that we come together as a community to support our fallen bloggers and those before them let them know that we are thinking of them and that they still have a home on our blogs. We must not let hope fade away and have to music die in all of us. Paz.

Click here to view the embedded video.

When it comes to Democratic politics and blogging, one of the biggest weaknesses within the progressive blogosphere is the lack of diversity. This is not based on “speculative and anecdotal”. In fact, one of the [tag]elite bloggers[/tag], Chris Bowers of MyDD has provide the hard evidence for those who insisted on hard evidence, the demographics are: “85-90% white, 60-65% male, very high income ($75-$80K average income), and the highly educated (40-50% advanced degrees, and 80-85% four year degrees).”

The problem with this picture, if these people are supposed to be the “voice of the people,” shouldn’t we have a right to be concerned about which opinions get attention over others? If the intent of blogging is to be an extension of your voice by expressing what you believe and feel and if one were stroll through the netroots, the old adage comes to mind “you can tell a lot about a person by what they say.” In Matt Stoller’s, also of MyDD, post called “Building Power,” does speak volumes.

3) Complaining about how nobody cares about your pet issue: This is often a subset of whining about linking. Here’s the real truth. It’s not that nobody cares about your pet issue, it’s that it’s not a priority for most people. That’s why it’s your pet issue. You have to explain why your pet issue is worth prioritizing and how by doing so others can have an impact. Until you do, it remains your problem. Don’t take it personally if people don’t share your priorities. Instead, convince and lead the way.

It is not that hard to tell exactly how Stoller feels when it comes to issues about race and diversity. In fact, he has every right to express them. However, what concerns me is what kind of democratic consensus does the blogosphere reflect when the people participating in it are most likely to be white, well-educated men and tend to disregard issues that affect the lives of thousands of women, gays and minorities? In other words, by disregarding these very important issues, doesn’t Stoller’s view make an impact on his audience’s perception on what should be considered important in the US? In fact, it does if only A-list bloggers are being embraced by the political establishment, such as Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of Daily Kos and especially when [tag]Daily Kos[/tag] and [tag]MyDD[/tag] are the most read and cited by them. And more so when Moulitsas consults regularly with influential Democrats in Washington and presidential candidates hire [tag]A-list bloggers[/tag] or court them with private dinners.

Recently, mi blogmigo, Nezua threw down the “gauntlet” to the elite WHITEPROGRESSIVE or as Marisacat calls them the Big Box Blogs and it seems they sort of were a little bothered by it. Which is why Matt and Chris where “tag-teaming” in their posts that was designed to put us in our place.

The reality is the netroots are trying to institute a Republican-lite model where everybody is all marching in lockstep. It is not a shock to see the elite blogger go after single-issue progressive groups or anybody who is dedicated to the cause of Democratic victory. And why not, as Stoller once wrote, “To the extent that I have a political hero, it’s probably Grover Norquist, not Ralph Nader.” The truth is everybody has their own grand vision of achieving equality in society, Markos, Chris, and Stoller are no different. The only difference, we all have our definition of equality and how they plan to achieve it.

Markos, Chris, and Stoller are true politicians, sure, they are not elected into office, but the political structure they established that makes them a politician. And the fact is, every politician expresses their vision on how they would like see the nation go and the reward it will bring in the long term, especially when an election is approaching soon. Once in office, they will implement their long-term policies for the sake of this grand vision. Truthfully, they do not desire to hear the truth. Their motives are to broker deals, and make compromises to make their vision a reality. Even though, a politician will never come right out and advocate a future that would include slavery, subjugation and exclusion, however, that does not they are against those concepts either. Oftentimes, they are masked through coded phrases, such as, how globalization will spread prosperity to the countries through capital and technology; or how the old trickle down effect is supposed to share wealth. The unspoken objective is financial and social equality for all future citizens. We all hope for the same thing but we are being offered different paths to the same goal.

We are often faced with a dilemma in trying to decide which would be the best path to take to achieve our ideal utopian society. The main reason why ideologies are rejected is often based on the steps a leader is willing to apply to create this so-called perfect future. Depending on the leader, that eventually will mean good news if you were in the in-crowd and bad news for everyone else. History serves as a guide in when it comes to extremism; in order for the Nazis to create a master race that would have involved all the inferior races had to be eliminated. In other words, there was no possibility for debate. Another example, in order for the United States to expand, it entailed to employ a genocidal policy towards the indigenous population, establishing slavery, and starting a war on a nearby nation. If you were Native American, an African slave, or Mexican this meant they were on the short end of the stick, but if you were a white male desiring to explore the western frontier, it was great news. Whether it is a master race paradise or empire building, it is still paradise that motivates them and no matter how you look at it, these methods were considered and necessary that paled in comparison towards making eternal bliss for a prosperous future for the nation. The only difference between the two countries that was used in the examples, only one was allowed to accomplish its intended goal. In a zero-sum game, the ends will always justify the means.

Lets not kid ourselves, the elite bloggers are wanting to build a Grover Norquist-type party, the Big Tent idea is just a facade. They talk a big game about inclusiveness within the Democratic Big Tent. But their tent is one that is about selling out women, gays and minorities just to continue the status quo. A status quo split into oppressor and the oppressed. A world of have’s and have-not’s.

This time around, [tag]Markos[/tag] thinks that if a blogger were to get a death threat, we should suck it up because “most of the time” they “don’t even exist.” Or, as Kalifornia’s Govnator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would say, “Don’t be a girlie man.” For Kos, courage is used to taunt people into doing something stupid. Sure it is easy to say suck it up if your only threat is that someone tells you “I hope you catch AIDS” but it is another, when you get comments or emails that say “we’re moving to send your sorry asses back over the border” or “hope you enjoy your stay in Gitmo” for speaking truth to power. It is not that easy to “suck it up.” Especially for many people across the country who have already been assaulted and even killed by some psychopath cyber-stalker they did not take seriously.

However, Kos’ behavior isn’t really new really. Sadly, this Berkeley faux liberal whose ideology better matches that of Reich wingers has duped a large majority over at the Big Orange Mothership Daily Kos and the Democratic Party into thinking he is a true Dem. Kos has and will always be a pompous asshole beyond compare, a fraud, a phony and a seasoned snake oil salesman. All anybody has to do is just go over to [tag]Marisacat[/tag]’s blog. She has been warning people long before this consequence. The irony, she has been harassed and is considered to be a pariah among some of the B-listers who are now complaining about King Koz.

Very interesting, as wilfred and I had been banned the last weekend of August (Madman was personally banned by Kos, October 2005, for complaining about tired Red State Dems run as effing heroes before they do anything, yes that is Tester, Webb and Casey and others)… we were banned as individuals, not as part of a purge. I still to this day have never read the Hunter FP piece on the banning..

The Boyz, or whatever they are, have been slamming me and a lot of other people for years now.

People saying what they think that does not conform to what they want said, well, it really pisses them off. And their Box Car Site Minions and others on the Treats and Sweets Rez….

Who FP intellectually dishonest, numbers grabbing bullshit (Outing Bloggers, “Marisacat”, Paparazzi at the Box Car Site, BMT), lectures and drooling “erotica” attended by Maryscott with her tongue hanging out… Voyeurs, original and Maryscott’s reconstruction among other FP slams at MLW. In a sad, public loss of any grip on reality, METAmorphosis at MLW. Not to forget this gem. Eugene and Armando with others, did stand up routines at MLW thru 2005/06, parsing my banning over and over for the little hordes. In case you think there is something new in BlahgTown.

(Oh and as a chocolate on the pillow or extra vodka in your OJ: don’t miss the BMT proprietaire being cute with his hints.)

I won’t be stopping. And I am so amused at the lately landed stress and anger, sturm and drang, directed at Kos. Sure did ramp up after the BlogRoll trim…

However, if your inner-kindergarten self still insist she has cooties and anybody else who associates with her has cooties, then all one has to do is do a simple Google search on “banned by Kos” to see what Kos is all about. I genuinely understand when people have an agenda of trying to find a common ground among the more conservative wing (AKA centrist) of the Democratic Party. However, the deal with Markos, there are those who continue believing he is Dem. The reality is, he started off as Republican and changed sides roughly around the same time when other Republicans switched sides because they realized the Religious Right successfully infiltrated their [tag]Republican[/tag] Party and were able to exert considerable influence on policy and lawmaking. Instead of fight them off; they have opted to take over the [tag]Democratic Party[/tag]. That is why we are the big tent party. The central problem is this: there are those in the progressive blogosphere who believe it is wrong to criticize. Nevertheless, if the [tag]progressive blogosphere[/tag] is NOT the place to criticize and rail against Markos and DailyKos, then what is the proper arena? By keeping things inside it will only fester for so long before it finally explodes.

However, there is a double standard. Markos consistently criticizes whomever he elects to criticize, including Democratic politicians and other progressives. For him to try to use his muscle and personal connections to squelch criticism of himself and his opinions is very Orwellian – “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” It is not surprising that the chickens came, home to roost. The more Markos and his followers stopped others from challenging his opinions throughout the blogosphere, it was inevitable that revolt against the authoritarian and totalitarian impulses are taking place. Just look below this post on the number of people who are speaking out (courtesy of Wampum).

Regardless of whether it is coming from the left or right, totalitarianism is just as brutal and will repeatedly have to have a need to justify its so-called “goodness” to the world. Even worse is when mindless followers are complied to remain mindless in the face of over whelming evidence. Terror is used to keep the faithful from straying and indoctrination to imprison the mind. Fear of change, the outside world, of not having a strong ruler are amplified to increase their need on the totalitarian regime.

Given the state that we are in, we have voluntarily surrendered our freedoms that we once held to be essential. Do we even care that homes are being bugged, our emails being read, our letters being opened? Where we have feared the ominous presence of Big Brother constantly gazing through the multiple security cameras around us, we are have now become oblivious to them and worse, we have become a voyeuristic society while our constant need to check a person’s background has become second nature. As we continue to be force-fed shadows on the wall of Plato’s Cave, people are disappearing right before our very eyes, vanished without a trace in the name of the “border security.” Is all this just an Orwellian dress rehearsal in preparation for the larger scale version?

Instead of running away from living in the world Orwell feared, the modern world celebrates it. When we hear Bush and our war hawk Democrats begging people to give war a chance, are these signs we are embracing the language of doublespeak and newspeak, “War is Peace?” If so, then it should not come as a shock that Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is the poster boy for “progressive is conservatism.”

People who have spoken out
brownfemipower at Woman of Color Blog
Zuzu at Feministe
Jessica at Feministing
Belledame at Fetch Me My Axe
Echnide of the Snakes
Mark at Norwegienty
Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast
Bitch PhD
Chris at Creek Running North and Pandagon
Kip at Long Story, Short Pier
Bruce at Crablaw
Melissa at Shakesville
Jeff at Blog of the Moderate Left
Interrobang
Stephen at The Thinkery
Amp at Alas, A Blog
Amanda at Pandagon
Lindsey at Majikthise
Dan at Fitness for the Occasion
Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican
Natasha, at Pacific Views
Kevin at Slant Truth
Aaron at Faithfully Liberal
Ntodd at Dohiyi Mir
Trifecta at New PairODimes
Steven D at Booman Tribune
Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat
Myra at Reno and Its Discontents
twoluvcats at a wealth of semi-useless information!
Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money
PZ at Pharyngula
skippy the bush kangaroo
Mickle at The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller
WebWeaver’s World

Renee at the Independent Bloggers’ Alliance
Terrance at The Republic of T
Vox Aemeliae

It seems like many people were talking about the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s plan to introduce a bill to reinstate the draft last week. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel had told Bob Schieffer, he is serious about calling for the draft.

“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,” Rangel said.

On the following Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Rangel continued to make his case by saying that the U.S. is too strained in Iraq.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Rangel’s call for a reinstatement of the draft is based on the notion that congressional representatives would be less likely to back a war that might involve the lives of their own children.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

The fact is, the US is very unlikely to reinstate the draft because of the Vietnam experience, however, and the reality is, according to Gen. John Abizaid, the 4-star who runs Central Command, the US does not have the appropriate number of troops to maintain “stability” in the region.

In August, the Marine Corps resorted to involuntary call-ups, meaning the Marine called up as many as 2,500 Marine reservists who have already left active service for combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would come from a pool of about 59,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — Marines with specific skills who left active duty and returned to civilian lives, but are obligated to serve if called. Marine Corps officials said yesterday that reservists in their first or last years of enrollment will not be subject to recall.

Rangel’s bill is tempting among progressives and liberals because the proposed bill would require all men and women – regardless of socio-economic background – between age 18 and 42 to serve in the military. Rangel has introduced a similar bill in the past that has failed. The proposed bill is a modified version of a bill he sponsored in 2003 which he proposed a draft for people between 18 and 26.

Soon after Rangel stated he was in favor of reinstating the draft, there was enough buzz in the progressive blogosphere to scare off top level Democrats to ensure that there’s no chance a draft will be instituted in a Democratic controlled Congress. Other political and military leaders suggest that there is no need to institute a draft but and the problems in Iraq can be solved by providing a several hundred thousand additional troops.

However, conscription does have some unlikely champions, including Noam Chomsky.

I might add, for what it’s worth, that although I was actively involved in organizing and supporting resistance (including support for draft resisters) in the 60s, and was saved from a likely prison sentence only by the Tet offensive, I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army. In part for the reasons that the top command oppose that option.

The proposed bill, would force every level of society to participate in military service, rather than placing a disproportionate burden on minorities and the working class. Those who are in favor of this idea are calling this type of draft the “equality draft” because Rangel clearly states, “everyone should share in the sacrifice.” In other words, everybody will have equal opportunity of living in misery.

The last time there was talk about the possibility of the draft being reinstated was after the 2004 Presidential election, several Internet sites and alternative media were advocating this view. In March 2005, Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote a decidedly pro-draft stance, “The Case for the Draft,” in the pro-centrist magazine, the Washington Monthly. Carter and Glastris argues that the US simply doesn’t have enough soldiers to occupy every country in Bush’s agenda since we already have hundreds of thousands of troops – of the 1.4 million men and women on active duty – stationed in hundreds of foreign nations. Therefore, a draft is needed to meet our shortcomings.

However, unlike last year, where most major media called it a “draft scare” created by Internet rumor mills and conspiracy theorist, this year, they have come out denouncing the idea. The US Selective Service System (SSS) website has been very quite this time around, during the “draft scare” officials from the Selective Service were quick to state that there were no “active plans” to revive a draft. Yet, US Selective Service System has said that they are ready to “pull the trigger” if Congress the president to authorize a draft system.

With the number of casualties nearing 3,000 since the invasion in Iraq and the dismissal of reinstating the draft, what are Americans to assume? One thing is for certain, most Americans are skeptical that a draft is likely. The general idea is that politicians of either party look at all costs to stay away raising the specter of a revived draft. And for most young Americans the draft seems far off. If only they knew.

Although Congress and the Department of Defense remains steadfastly opposed to a draft, their actions tell a different story. Even though the requirement for all men between 18 and 26 to register with the draft was suspended in 1975, in 1980, Congress reinstated draft registration for men 18 to 25 years old in “preparations for intervention” after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Later, in 1987, Congress modified the Military Selective Service Act by enacting Public Law 100-180 which ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a structure capable of registering and classifying qualified health care personnel who are essential to the “maintenance of the Armed Forces.” Called the “Health Care Personnel Delivery System” (HCPDS), the system is able to specifically induct 73,000 civilian health care personnels from about 60 medical specialties if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.

The Selective Service system shall be maintained as an active standby organization, with (1) a complete registration and classification structure capable of immediate operation in the event of a national emergency (including a structure for registration and classification of persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care occupation essential to the maintenance of the Armed Forces), and (2) personnel adequate to reinstitute immediately the full operation of the System, including military reservists who are trained to operate such System and who can be ordered to active duty for such purpose in the event of a national emergency.

In 1989, Selective Service published its plans for the HCPDS for public comment on August 15, 1989 (54 Federal Register 33644-33654), and has had them ready ever since. According to one military doctor, in 2004, there was talk about that a physician draft is was most likely coming in the near future, however, nothing has been said if it will happen.

In 2003, a top-level meeting took place between the head of the SSS and Deputy Undersecretary in charge of Personnel and Readiness of the Department of Defense on reengineering a new type of draft, the Skills Draft. The unclassified memo proposes that the SSS be able to call up any number of several hundred skills the Pentagon and even the Dept. of Homeland Security might be lacking.

Washington Monthly piece by Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris, calls it the “21st century draft” and argues it would be more efficient than the conventional draft because it would be more universal (women as well as men) and more complex. In fact, it will not even be called a draft, it will wrapped up with an Orwellian label, sort like the “Clear Skies Initiative” or the “No Child Left Behind.” The draft will more likely be called “national service,” “homeland service,” or “universal service” and it draft for “homeland security” as well as duty overseas – duties would include being a border guard, immigration cop, IT specialists and medics.

If one were to look carefully to the wording used on “Face the Nation,” Rangel stated that the draft was not just for military services, but –

“young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,” with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

I have previously written other posts (The CO Candidate’s Community Service Draft for Boys and The Green Card Draft) about chatter of reinstating the draft for “national service.”

This type of draft being proposed by some liberals and conservatives closely resembles what Israel has today. The Israeli national service requires three years of service for all Jewish and Druze men, two for all women–between age 17 and 50. Israel divides the type of service in three parts: military (compulsory for men, except orthodox women and Jewish or Druze theology students or teachers), security (police, fire, border, anti- terror units), and community service.

It is hard not to agree with Rep. Rangel and the pro-draft people who argue that the war in Iraq cannot be sustained by the existing volunteer force that makes up the current so-called All-Volunteer Army. But the idea of forcing people to become cannon fodder is unconscionable. And the to literally believe that creating a draft would limit political options by creating a level playing field between classes, are only fooling themselves from reality.

Rangel has provided the elite and the well connected a way out from serving military combat. The proposed plan will allow an individual the choice of serving in the military or doing civilian work. And if given that choice, the children of the ruling class and those who are well connected will be found working in air conditioned offices, while the vast majority of minorities and the working class will still be found fulfilling their “national service” duties in the Armed Forces. Anyone with an option to stay away from the military would and those who couldn’t would be sent off to some other country for the American Empire.

A draft by any other name is still a draft and it will still and always be wrong!