Here's another thing about DU that is driving to distraction:

[Berry Cool]

...the relentless, mindless, thorough and complete equivalency of corporations and big business with Evil Incarnate.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that at the core of the recent MSNBC hatred that has enveloped some DU'ers to all distraction, even more so than being a blind Hillary Clinton supporter to the point that she can do no wrong (because it's not just Hillary supporters, and not all Hillary supporters are angry at MSNBC), is something deeper.

It's a hatred of the mainstream media, all of them. And it's a hatred based not just on what they say, or don't say. Or what they cover or don't cover. Or of this media personality vs. that one. It is a pervasive hatred of ALL mainstream media and ALL people on them.

Now, how did this happen? Used to be, it was the wingnuts who hated mainstream media. In fact, many still do. They still think the media have a terrible liberal bias.

So, on one side, you have rightwingers who say the media are terrible because of their liberal bias, and on the other, you have leftwingers who hate them for their conservative bias.

Both sides agree on one thing: The media are EVIL.

This seems a strange position for progressive people to take. The journalists are supposed to be our friends, the watchdogs on those in power. So what happened?

Well, you know what happened. Big corporations began buying up the media, and now most of them are owned by a few big companies. That isn't necessarily a good thing. More diversity was better. More independence was better.

And of course, in the frontier of the new media, diversity and independence are the order of the day. Another thing wingnuts and liberals seem to agree on is that bloggers are purevyors and champions of journalistic truth. They may disagree on WHICH blogs distribute the truth, but aside from that, they agree, each for their own reasons.

The wingnuts believe only conservative bloggers (aside from Fox News, I guess) can be trusted because they are not controlled by the "liberals" who supposedly control the messages of the MSM. The progressives believe only liberal bloggers can be trusted because they are not subsidized by the corporations who supposedly control the messages of the MSM. Neither seem to care about other factors that can contribute to bloggers being more or less trustworthy. You know, like professionalism, training, ethics...those seem to count for nothing in the brave new world of citizen journalism...but I digress.

Anyway, both groups agree the MSM stink.

This isn't about why the wingnuts think it. It's about liberals and progressives, and the devout belief of some of them that anyone who owns, operates or accepts a paycheck from a corporation, or somehow benefits from the existence of a corporation, is Evil. Because corporations are Evil.

This just doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

Corporations aren't evil. The people who RUN them are. Or can be. Or not.

The biggest danger in corporations is that they're so big and impersonal that they make inhuman behavior easier, so hierarchical that they make it easy for those on top to abuse those on the bottom and to exploit people around the world if they see fit. But it doesn't HAVE to be that way.

Corporations aren't good or bad, other than that people make them so. And I'd wager that most of them are SO big that they're not all good or all evil. Nor are all the people who work for them, or do work to support them. Or do something else that directly or indirectly supports them.

We live in a post-Industrial Revolution world. We also live in the Technology Society. Unless you live by yourself in a shack in the woods "off the grid," in some way, everything you do from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed at night in some way is happening courtesy of a corporation, and you are somehow benefiting or using the product of a corporation. Does this make us all evil?

I don't think so.

I think it's possible for people to run corporations without being evil, work for corporations without being evil, enjoy the work of corporations without being evil, perform work that benefits corporations without being evil. It's harder in a world in which corporations are considered legal people, and seem to have more rights and recourses than people do. I think it's time for things to come into balance, for people to matter at least as much.

But does it make sense to call for the death of the corporation? To believe that civilization, period = oppression?

I don't think so. But a lot of DU'ers do. And because of that, they will always think of the MSM and those who work for them as evil. And they will always look for reasons to hate them or attack them for being evil.

I guess that's their choice. But it's also my choice if I want to call them fucking hypocrites. Because if they're not anarcho-primitivists who actively reject and refuse contact with anything that ever has or had to do with a corporation or technology or civilization, that's what they are.

Me? I don't think Ted Kaczynski is such a great role model, myself. And when you follow their anti-corporate fanaticism to its conclusion, Ted Kaczynski is what you can get. Nor do I really want to live in the woods, drink water, eat plants and clothe myself in leaves for the rest of my life. If this makes me evil, I guess I'm evil.

That's what it comes down to, for some of these people. Sure, for others it's a simple case of Hillary fanaticism making them blind, or envy of people who have "real" journalism jobs with hefty paychecks. But for others, this is what is at the heart of it all. A hatred of mainstream media born of a hatred of anything and everything corporate.

It's a hypocritical hatred. But there's no way to undo it using logic, because logic has nothing to do with it.

[RevCheesehead]

1. Berry, that's a damned fine piece of writing!

I think some of this is the effect of having a leader who claimed he "was a uniter, not a divider," and then proceeded to polarize everyone and everything. And rather than find shades of grey (a very fine piece by Billy Joel, BTW), people look at everything as if it were black or white only.

They also fell into the trap of hatred. Once you define someone as your enemy, you must hate at all costs. No exceptions. So the repukes have hated gays and lesbians, people of color, liberals and progressives, and women clergy. (!) If I then choose to hate back, I have taken the poison into my own soul, and I am dead to what I say that I believe.

There's also the psychological factor of triangulation at work. I need an enemy to hate, either so I can become a victim (usually a helpless one), or the super-duper rescuer. That's just fucked up, and it lets people avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions and words.

I'm more in agreement with people who say "it's just a message board." But then again, I haven't spent much time anywhere on DU except for the KOEB - and you know I've been absent a lot lately.

Thanks again for a very fine article. You should post it in GD, and see what happens. :)

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I agree.

I post lots of news articles, the vast majority of them from the MSM. Why are they from the MSM? Because they are NEWS! Bloggers have admirably broken important stories, and called attention to others of importance, but they don't have the resources, or news-gathering capacity, to report news on a day to day basis. Without the news provided by major newspapers, wire services and news organizations we would be ignorant, indeed.

It's wise to look at media with a skeptical eye, and learn to recognize news dispensed with an agenda -- but thinking people should be able to learn to do that.

And there are DUers far enough to the left, God bless them, that they would dispense of corporations/business. Their motives are pure, but, as you say, are they realistic? For better or worse, capitalism is, and always has been, part of the U.S. of A. The Bush cabal has reminded us once again of the dangers of unbridled capitalism. Fortunately, our system has facilitated adjustment when people have had enough.

[Berry Cool]

3. Thanks, both of you.

And while we're on this topic and DMM is here, I'll mention something else that goes to prove my point about the difference between the Clubhouse and DU in general.

A few weeks ago, I asked DMM if she'd post a link to the article I posted a link to here a while ago--the one about Dennis Kucinich. I admitted I didn't feel brave enough to do so, but I felt someone should post a link to it because no one else out there in the land of GD had as yet. I wondered if it might open any eyes at all, or make people think, the way it did here. But I wasn't keen to suffer the pixilated slings and arrows of linking to something a lot of people wouldn't like to see--so given that DMM has a reputation for posting ALL kinds of links with ALL kinds of news, whether or not she personally agrees with them, I PM'ed her and asked her if she would. She agreed.

Her thread, after having collected a few negative comments denouncing in just a few words what the article said, sank like a stone.

Not a single comment addressed anything of substance in the article. It was all on the level of superficial "Oh boy, here goes someone hating on Dennis again, what nitwits" stuff. Nothing to substantively counteract any claims made. Or "Look at this stuff they are dredging up from the long-ago past, that's how far they have to go back to find dirt on him."

And, not a single comment from anyone saying "Wow, I didn't know this" or even "Is this true?" or a single person concerned that anything he did in the past might indicate what he might do in the future.

The whole article was dismissed out of hand.

And you know why, don't you? Because Dennis Kucinich is one of the "saints" of DU. He can do no wrong. Everything he says and does is regarded as perfect in the eyes of most of DU. Never is heard a discouraging word. Many members are supporting the candidate they currently support ONLY because he is out. And they (not to mention everyone from Randi Rhodes to Hollywood celebrities) are contributing boatloads of money to him that other congressional candidates for his seat will not get, so he'll go into his re-election race probably much richer than even the candidate being supported by boatloads of corporate bucks (and there's only one of those, so Kucinich will get what he wants--a two-way contest between himself and an Evil Big Business Candidate, which he loves). So, essentially, whoever wins Ohio-11 will probably be determined more by either Big Business or the one-two punch of DU and Hollywood than it really will be by any of the people who actually LIVE in Ohio-11.

And why is this? Why is Dennis Teflon in DU?

Because he has consistently throughout his political career maintained a posture that is virulently, 100% ANTI-CORPORATE. And on DU, that makes you gold.

Don't think it's just his push to impeach Bushco (which I am behind 100%, and which I only wish other Dems were as strongly behind as he is). Don't think it's just his saying it, and meaning it, that if he were president, he would end the war (which I sadly doubt either Clinton or Obama will really do if put to the test). Don't think it's just his Congressman Moonbeam concept for a "Department of Peace." It's the anti-corporatism. He hates big business just as much as most DU'ers do. He thinks big business is inherently evil, or at least makes a good bogeyman to pit himself against to make himself look like a champion dragonslayer. Always has. And that's why he's DU's hero.

And it's one of the reasons he's always bugged me. Because even as a 17-year-old, I understood that regarding big business as the root of all evil was not a way anyone could logically live.

Life is a compromise. Ideological purity and living in such a way that one never does any harm to others is impossible. The best any of us can do is try to be aware and to hurt others the least we can. If we learn that our sneakers are being made by child labor in China, well then maybe we can do something about it, or try to. If we know some business is laying off people just to create bigger profits for its shareholders, we can get angry. If we want others to know these things, we can publicize it. Etc.

But one thing I learned is, in the world such as it is today, you're never going to know all the ways that things you do and use and take advantage of may be causing pain or harm to someone else. You may boycott Company X's coffee because you don't like their trade practices and choose Company Y instead. But do you know that the bags Company Y puts their coffee in are produced by people earning minimum wage and working under dangerous conditions? Or, you may benefit the bean grower by refusing to buy from Company X, or tell yourself you are, but if Company X's sales are low enough, it may not result in fairer trade policies--Company X could just go out of business, laying off all its workers. Good for you--you caused them pain because of your fair-trade principles.

The sad fact is, even if it were possible to track and monitor everything we do to ensure we did no ethical harm, we'd be so busy doing that, we'd have no time to do anything else.

I think it's a sad day when people have to get on DU and defend the fact that some of the candidates have, at times, worked in corporate law. I think it's a sad day when DU'ers have to say that they THEMSELVES work in corporate law, but it doesn't make them bad people. Or say that their daughter or son works in corporate law, but they do it because they have $100,000 in law school bills to pay and would love to be doing something else, and hope to someday, but for now has to do something that will pay off those bills.

That's what I saw the other day. To me, it was a sterling example of one of the classic DU "My candidate and I are more ideologically pure than thou and yours" pissing contests.

And I thought: "If you take this all to its logical conclusion, NOBODY on DU is ideologically pure and good and virtuous unless they're living in a shack, off the land, with no running water or electricity, and eating and clothing themselves only with plants" (because heaven forbid one should cause the death or exploitation of an animal).

And then I thought of a well-known person who believes that corporations and technology are Evil, and once lived in a shack while sending out his missives to say so.

And then I thought of those millennialist survivalist folks who live out in the woods in Idaho or Montana somewhere with their guns. They are the rightwing version of extremism: the side that believes government doesn't just need to be smaller, it needs to go away altogether, for government is Evil.

And I thought, in a sad twist of what Obama said the other night (which I guess is an old Hopi saying if you trace it back to its roots): "We are becoming that which we have been scared of all along."

It's a losing game. And I hate to see DU play it. Because it only makes it clearer to me exactly why it is so easy for people who think like this to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in elections AND administrations. As idealists, they are so damn busy trying to be flawless and make everyone else flawless (if you are flawed, they have no use for you) that they make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Their battle cry is "Perfection or nothing!"

And because they can't get perfection, nothing is they get. But dammit, at least they STUCK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES!

And if Dems lose this election, that will be why. We laugh at Repubs for hating McCain so much that they say they will vote for Hillary or Barack instead. But how many DU'ers are there now, saying "If Clinton isn't the nominee, rather than have my country fall into the hands of that cultist wacko Obama, I will vote for McCain"? Or "If Obama isn't the nominee, I'll be damned if I'll vote for Queen Hillary and her court. I'll vote for McCain"?

Wouldn't it be a riot if we woke up the day after the election and learned that it was still too close to call, just like in 2000--and the reason why is, all the Dems voted for McCain and all the Repubs voted for the Dem? Out of pique? Out of spite? Out of the kind of "It's my way or the highway" petulance of the kind we expect to see in teenagers, not adults?

That may not happen. But if some people on DU don't get their eyes back on the prize, Dems could damn well lose this election. For months, I didn't think that was going to be possible. I thought, people are so sick of Bush, and anything to do with Bush, there's no way. The Dems could literally stand a yellow dog for president and it would win in a landslide.

But I see that slipping away now. And all because the reaction to not getting what we want seems to be that we're going to hold our breaths until we turn blue. Or maybe, in this case, red.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Great post, Berry! I was just thinking yesterday along some of the same lines --

I really feared our democratic system wouldn't survive the Bush cabal. They steal elections, they ignore the Constitution, they think the rule of law doesn't apply to them. And now that it looks like we probably will survive, even before Bush is out of office, Dems think we have the luxury of demanding a certain Dem candidate or we'll go off the reservation? Given an opportunity to go into an election with the GOP in the dumpster, and we're spending our time savaging our own, doing the GOP's work for them in advance?

IMO, it just makes no sense. I was the proposer of one of the candidate groups on DU, and remain that candidate's supporter, but I'll be damned if I'm going to rip to shreds the other candidate remaining in this race, one of two of our almost certain '08 nominees.

[Berry Cool]

7. And DMM, maybe part of the reason DUers are eating their own is

sheer frustration that nothing we do seems to have ANY effect on the REAL enemy. We're furious at them, yet they go on doing what they do and it all rolls off their backs. And, if anything, the people we elect are too timid to make them stop.

So instead, they beat up on each other. Like a kid who gets bullied and picked on at school, who then goes home and bullies his younger brother. Why? Because he needs SOME situation in which he can feel powerful.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. I think you could be on to something there! nt

[Patsy Stone]

5. "anarcho-primitivists"

Love it.

Yes, I agree with what you say, and I only have to hearken back to November, 2007, when the majority of threads were insisting we boycott all stores and manufactured goods this Christmas or be damned for all eternity for buying into the rampant consumerism propagated by the evil big box retailers, corporations, and MSM advertisers to confirm its truth.

I've said it before: DU is not a fair representation of the Democrats or America. It is, however, a more than fair sample of liberal idealists. My personal favorites are those who don't watch TV, yet feel compelled to comment on the programming choices and/or biases, but I also like to read the "Death to Starbucks" threads when I'm feeling blue. Sweat shops, employment inequalities, and good corporate citizenship are all important issues which need to be addressed, but I'm fairly positive the end of all corporations is not the way to address them. Go ahead and call me a Freeper if you must.

The invention of the intertubes has allowed citizen journalists to break some stories, but it's also given the people a chance to express their opinions in a virtual town square -- and to what we can compare opinions?

The dangerous part, and the worst part of it all, is when the only real opinions are the ones "which agree with mine". This is due both to pure self-indulgence, usually never tolerated in real life, but yet perfectly acceptable in the "Id" based culture of the internets, and also the ease with which we are able to gather in small groups (blogs, message boards, etc.) whose purpose is only to reinforce those opinions with no counter.

It's the downside to this gigantic online social experiment in which we find ourselves. The false sense of entitlement to never be questioned (and it exists on both sides) allows people to fragment into factions, using their new found collectiveness to hate. Groups which start off touting the benefits of vegetarianism can quickly devolve into a site with daily diatribes against carnivores. Which is why the Rev's post is spot on.

On the flip side, the instant access to information, the ability to exchange and discuss it, and the ability to come together for positive change and act upon important issues is also the very best thing about the internets. So it's all a matter of balance, which is the most difficult thing to achieve in normal circumstances let alone with the added variable of anonymity tossed into the mix.

I :loveya: you all. I thank you for your wisdom, your countenance, and your balanced approach to the world.

:toast: TTTTB!

[Berry Cool]

6. You said it, Pats.

Yes, the holiday season on DU is often very distasteful. Between the anti-corporatists, the anti-religionists, and the people moping about being forced to spend yet more time with their freeper relatives, sometimes it's all you can do to keep from hunting for the razor blades. The joking about the "War on Christmas" is all that keeps it sane.

And yes, one of the downsides of these Intertubes is that when everyone is free to express an opinion, and opinions are like assholes, a lot of opinions get spouted from a lot of assholes. Or, a lot of the opinions at least resemble what comes out of assholes. And, of course, there's no quality control. Everyone's free to post without thinking if they so choose. Throw in the anonymity and, well, no one has to be responsible for anything.

And the upside, of course, is the very freedom. The chance for those good voices to be heard. The chance to stand up for something without having to pay for it by having your life ruined by those who hate and oppose it.

Sometimes it just all gets to be a bit much. And when it does, that's when I truly value what we have here in the KOEB. All we really have to link us is our feelings about Mr. O. In other ways, we're very different. But we're a group of thinkers, and respecters, and, what's more, kind people. I'm coming to see that more and more every day.

:toast: TTTTB indeed!

[RavensChick]

8. What a great thread!

After reading this, I have to put in my .98 too:

First and foremost, in the last few months of being a proud member of the KOEB, I have to commend all of you for the insights of not only encouraging Keith for his reporting of all the events, big & small, funny & serious, but encouraging each other (on and off topic) in such a caring and loving way I wish ALL of those in GDP should heed. Okay, so most of the news Keith has to report on every night pisses us off but look at it this way--he keeps things honest. I don't ever recall of any journalist any time, anywhere since Vietnam and the Watergate era stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. That is why Keith has quite a following and I'm so glad to be witnessing history on that level and sharing it here in the Clubhouse.

Second, as for the GDP, I don't go over there often. Some of the threads I read, whether here at home or at work, has been major league OMG! moments for me. I hear most of that shit in the streets on most days, and living here in the Washington, DC area I've seen and heard it all thus far. Since Dubya stole the election in 2000, it's been one thing after another, and when I first started reading all the threads in DU before coming here I shake my head in utter and total disbelief.

How in the world can anyone decide who's right and who's wrong? I agree that the MSM has gone the way of "it's all about the benjamins" in the last few years, there are still some honest reporters out there (sadly, far few and in between) who merely do what they're told with no hestitation. However, there are many who'll sell their own grandmother down the river in order to get the big story, not giving 2 cents of a damn who gets hurt in the process! It's horrible, yes, but I pray for the day when all of them will come to realize that at the end of the day, two things: 1) God is watching them, as He does all of us; and 2) advertisers will pull their ads off their airwaves in a heartbeat when the word "boycott" is screamed at them through the bullhorn of the American consumer (meaning you and me), shaming them to do the right thing.

Also, as far as the tone DU is taking, I'm very saddened by it. I'll only go to certain threads by screening the thread first and deciding whether or not to chime in. BTW, this link could solve that problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4518025

Besides, coming here in the evening when I can is another way for me to not only unwind but to share in witnessing history. So the freepers and flame baiters and all the major haters will say whatever they want. I applaud the mods for keeping things in order, but they can only do so much. I've been to other message boards that are 10,000 times more hostile, mean-spirited, and in most cases, downright violent when it comes to politics and news in general (whether Keith is mentioned or not). Those boards scare the living daylights out of me so much I only glance for a quick second and get off real quick before my IP address can be traced!

The Internet is an interesting creature. What bothers me is how long will it be before people finally see that we're becoming what's been greatly feared for so long by the way people post whatever and wherever and not thinking first before hitting the enter key or clicking ok. That's what spell check and your conscience are for (can I get an amen?!)!! I learned long ago that if someone can't say somthing positive, they should say NOTHING AT ALL!!!! They should think long and hard before posting ANYTHING because who knows who's reading and how it'll affect them the next day on their job or in their community!. That's what concerns me greatly about the road DU is taking. I love this site, and I truly hope and pray that everyone will come to realize that we're to be united for the cause of taking back the White House in November, and NOT giving the repugs an inch! We all should hope for the same.

Berry, thank you very much for voicing your opinion in this. I know we have the right to free speech and all, but sadly everyone does not think the same way we do. People can agree to disagree at times, but GDP will look down at us in a New York second when we speak up. I say, let them. Sooner or later they'll tire of it and move on.

I love you all. :grouphug:

[RevCheesehead]

10. Just for you, Patsy,

I'm going to start calling it "the Idternets."

:rofl: