I wish to thank Doug Paul Davis and the People’s Vanguard of Davis for allowing me to report last Sunday from Chicago and again today on the phenomenally successful YearlyKos Convention, which took place August 1 through August 5.
As I mentioned last week, attending the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago was a real eye opener for me. For four days, fifteen hundred bloggers, political activists and journalists traveling from all over the country learned from each other and exchanged ideas about the Netroots, a national on-line internet community which is dedicated to returning democracy to the people and spawning the “Dawn of a New Politics” for America.
The YearlyKos Convention is the annual gathering of bloggers who use the DailyKos.com blog founded by Markos Moulitsas as a way to fight back against the Republican right-wingers, conservative/right-wing talk radio and the Republican propaganda network—Fox News, who have dominated politics in our country for the past 25 years.
It was simply a thrill to be amongst so many progressive citizens committed to taking our country back and repairing the damage of the Bush/Cheney administration.
I have also posted several photos (which will be posted later today) from the convention including a picture of the main stage and the media stage where over one hundred electronic and print media reporters and journalists from across America sat as well as one of me with Charlie & Jan Brown who along with their congressional campaign staff attended the convention too.
Finally, I wish to share with Davis Vanguard readers what the conservative and Republican leaning Chicago Tribune editorialized to their readers on Monday, August 6:
THE RISE OF THE NETROOTS
“We might as well admit it up front: The first time we heard of the liberal blogging network known as Daily Kos was when Bill O’Reilly discussed it on his show. Next thing we know, hundreds of ‘Kossacks’ are hunched over their laptops at McCormick Place South, and seven Democratic presidential candidates are lined up to take their questions. Very impressive.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also RSVP’d to YearlyKos, a three day convention for liberal writer-activists. The event drew so much Democratic star power (and so much press) that it didn’t feel like too much of a stretch for the Washington Post to declare it the ‘Democrats’ Other Convention.’
Dailykos.com, once the personal Web log of native Chicagoan Markos Moulitsas, has evolved into ‘the flagship netroots liberal/progressive/Democratic Web site,’ in other words of a member who blogs under the name “paradox.” That particular entry, posted to welcome and inform curious O’Reilly viewers who are net-savvy enough to find the site, labors to explain what ‘netroots’ are all about. Suffice it to say that Hillary Clinton is the group’s third-favorite presidential candidate, thanks to her relatively hawkish stand on Iraq.
Though they couldn’t find time for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council’s conference earlier in the week, Hillary, Barack and the gang went all-out for YearlyKos, wagering that the bloggers can do for the left what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have done for the right.
The Republican candidates, meanwhile, are still harrumphing about the format of last month’s CNN/You-Tube debate, in which Democrats responded to videotaped questions submitted by viewers—including one about global warming posed by a digitally enhanced snowman. A similar debate for Republicans looking iffy, with several candidates offering their regrets due to “scheduling conflicts’ while muttering about the erosion of dignity in campaign forums.
‘I don’t know that it makes sense to have people running for president answering questions posed by snowmen,’ former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney sniffed.
The Republican National Committee is similarly dismissive of YearlyKos, calling it a ‘panderfest to liberal partisans,’ maybe it is. But in 2007, freedom of the press belongs to anyone who owns a laptop. The YouTube debate drew 2.6 million television viewers and 45.5 million Web page viewers. Candidates who want to harness the power of the new media are going to have to muster up some respect for snowmen—and for bloggers.”
As our hometown blogger, “Doug Paul Davis” has definitely earned our respect and appreciation for bringing The Vanguard to our community.
As our hometown blogger, “Doug Paul Davis” has definitely earned our respect and appreciation for bringing The Vanguard to our community.
As our hometown blogger, “Doug Paul Davis” has definitely earned our respect and appreciation for bringing The Vanguard to our community.
As our hometown blogger, “Doug Paul Davis” has definitely earned our respect and appreciation for bringing The Vanguard to our community.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The fact that Hillary is the third choice of the blogging community tells me that new bloggers like me need to speak up on national politics as well as local issues. So here is my first national political statement … Hillary is the best person for the job of President. She is #1 in my head and #1 in my heart.
The People’s Vanguard of Davis is our local version of the progressive DailyKos website. Our community now has a daily alternative to the Davis Enterprise’s monopoly on what has been reported as news or even reported on at all.
The People’s Vanguard of Davis is our local version of the progressive DailyKos website. Our community now has a daily alternative to the Davis Enterprise’s monopoly on what has been reported as news or even reported on at all.
The People’s Vanguard of Davis is our local version of the progressive DailyKos website. Our community now has a daily alternative to the Davis Enterprise’s monopoly on what has been reported as news or even reported on at all.
The People’s Vanguard of Davis is our local version of the progressive DailyKos website. Our community now has a daily alternative to the Davis Enterprise’s monopoly on what has been reported as news or even reported on at all.
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
Anonymous said…
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
I have absolutely no problem with that baggage.
Anonymous said…
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
I have absolutely no problem with that baggage.
Anonymous said…
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
I have absolutely no problem with that baggage.
Anonymous said…
Re: Hillary as #1:
There is some truth in the mashing together of celeb couple’s names, “Brangelina,” “Bennifer,” and now “HillBilly.”
You get a two-for-one deal, baggage included, if you vote for Hillary.
I have absolutely no problem with that baggage.
America is in desperate need of massive corrections from the corrupt and disastrous Bush/Cheney policies. As John Dean says in his book “Worse than Watergate” the corruption of the Bush/Cheney administration and the prior 12 years of Republican congresses have bankrupted this country both fiscally and morally. The Bush/Cheney people do not believe in the Rule of Law.
Every Democratic presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden etc. offers new and positive direction to remedy these massive failures and return our nation to a government for the people and by the people. In 2008, the voters must take back our country.
America is in desperate need of massive corrections from the corrupt and disastrous Bush/Cheney policies. As John Dean says in his book “Worse than Watergate” the corruption of the Bush/Cheney administration and the prior 12 years of Republican congresses have bankrupted this country both fiscally and morally. The Bush/Cheney people do not believe in the Rule of Law.
Every Democratic presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden etc. offers new and positive direction to remedy these massive failures and return our nation to a government for the people and by the people. In 2008, the voters must take back our country.
America is in desperate need of massive corrections from the corrupt and disastrous Bush/Cheney policies. As John Dean says in his book “Worse than Watergate” the corruption of the Bush/Cheney administration and the prior 12 years of Republican congresses have bankrupted this country both fiscally and morally. The Bush/Cheney people do not believe in the Rule of Law.
Every Democratic presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden etc. offers new and positive direction to remedy these massive failures and return our nation to a government for the people and by the people. In 2008, the voters must take back our country.
America is in desperate need of massive corrections from the corrupt and disastrous Bush/Cheney policies. As John Dean says in his book “Worse than Watergate” the corruption of the Bush/Cheney administration and the prior 12 years of Republican congresses have bankrupted this country both fiscally and morally. The Bush/Cheney people do not believe in the Rule of Law.
Every Democratic presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden etc. offers new and positive direction to remedy these massive failures and return our nation to a government for the people and by the people. In 2008, the voters must take back our country.
I’ll gladly take and vote for “HillBilly.” Baggage and all. They have proven that they can handle the hard times. That, coupled with Hillary’s leadership and experience is only one of the reasons that I will be giving her my vote.
I’ll gladly take and vote for “HillBilly.” Baggage and all. They have proven that they can handle the hard times. That, coupled with Hillary’s leadership and experience is only one of the reasons that I will be giving her my vote.
I’ll gladly take and vote for “HillBilly.” Baggage and all. They have proven that they can handle the hard times. That, coupled with Hillary’s leadership and experience is only one of the reasons that I will be giving her my vote.
I’ll gladly take and vote for “HillBilly.” Baggage and all. They have proven that they can handle the hard times. That, coupled with Hillary’s leadership and experience is only one of the reasons that I will be giving her my vote.
The real question is, will all this blogging and youtubing actually increase voter turnout?
The other difficult part about blogg reading is fact checking. I know and trust DPD, but how do you trust that what you read on other blogs.
To further complicate it, when you go to fact check stuff on the internet you find conflicting arguments on those facts.
Blogging has changed how people receive information. But what kind of information are they receiving?
The real question is, will all this blogging and youtubing actually increase voter turnout?
The other difficult part about blogg reading is fact checking. I know and trust DPD, but how do you trust that what you read on other blogs.
To further complicate it, when you go to fact check stuff on the internet you find conflicting arguments on those facts.
Blogging has changed how people receive information. But what kind of information are they receiving?
The real question is, will all this blogging and youtubing actually increase voter turnout?
The other difficult part about blogg reading is fact checking. I know and trust DPD, but how do you trust that what you read on other blogs.
To further complicate it, when you go to fact check stuff on the internet you find conflicting arguments on those facts.
Blogging has changed how people receive information. But what kind of information are they receiving?
The real question is, will all this blogging and youtubing actually increase voter turnout?
The other difficult part about blogg reading is fact checking. I know and trust DPD, but how do you trust that what you read on other blogs.
To further complicate it, when you go to fact check stuff on the internet you find conflicting arguments on those facts.
Blogging has changed how people receive information. But what kind of information are they receiving?
What’s great about blogging is that it has given power to the every day person. So candidates as well as constituents get to hear from members of the public and not just the rich newspaper owners who want to use their papers to promote their candidate(s) of choice.
Thank you DPD for providing this blog to our community.
What’s great about blogging is that it has given power to the every day person. So candidates as well as constituents get to hear from members of the public and not just the rich newspaper owners who want to use their papers to promote their candidate(s) of choice.
Thank you DPD for providing this blog to our community.
What’s great about blogging is that it has given power to the every day person. So candidates as well as constituents get to hear from members of the public and not just the rich newspaper owners who want to use their papers to promote their candidate(s) of choice.
Thank you DPD for providing this blog to our community.
What’s great about blogging is that it has given power to the every day person. So candidates as well as constituents get to hear from members of the public and not just the rich newspaper owners who want to use their papers to promote their candidate(s) of choice.
Thank you DPD for providing this blog to our community.
When I went to hear John Edwards speak at the Mondavi last year, it surprised me how much hate there was for Hillary among left-wing Democrats. Obama had not yet emerged at that time, and I got the sense that Edwards was the favorite of the left of the Democratic party. However, I think Obama has (at least in a national sense, if not in Iowa and NH) sapped Edwards’s strength. As such, Hillary seems to be helped by having the anti-Hillary left vote split among Obama and Edwards and to a lesser extent the other candidates (such as Kucinich, who has a following among the most ideological voters in the Democratic Party) on her left….
I would be surprised if Hillary does not ultimately win the Democratic nomination (something I predicted in my column some time ago). She is an excellent candidate and is very well prepared to be the president (unlike the village idiot we have now). However, Hillary is an uninspiring speaker, and that limits her ability to really excite the country around her candidacy. Edwards is a very good speaker and can excite the right audience. And Obama strikes me as having almost JFK-like talent on the podium. He may not ever win the Democratic nomination or be president. But if he were elected, he has the gift to really move the American public….
On the Republican side, there is not a particulary great speaker. Romney may be the best, but he comes across (at this point) as a bit of a phony. McCain is an inspired person, but his oratorial skills are not superior. I think much of the reason so many people are pining for Fred Thompson is because they think he will actually inspire first his party and later the general public. I don’t quite see that with Thompson — he seems a bit laconic to me — but maybe I haven’t heard him in the right setting….
I know that Democrats hate his guts, and he is not well liked by most independents, and now that his personal life has proved to be a total mess the fundamentalists probably don’t like him either, but I find Newt Gingrich (who won’t run) the best choice among Republicans, if you want a creative and bright thinker who speaks well.
When I went to hear John Edwards speak at the Mondavi last year, it surprised me how much hate there was for Hillary among left-wing Democrats. Obama had not yet emerged at that time, and I got the sense that Edwards was the favorite of the left of the Democratic party. However, I think Obama has (at least in a national sense, if not in Iowa and NH) sapped Edwards’s strength. As such, Hillary seems to be helped by having the anti-Hillary left vote split among Obama and Edwards and to a lesser extent the other candidates (such as Kucinich, who has a following among the most ideological voters in the Democratic Party) on her left….
I would be surprised if Hillary does not ultimately win the Democratic nomination (something I predicted in my column some time ago). She is an excellent candidate and is very well prepared to be the president (unlike the village idiot we have now). However, Hillary is an uninspiring speaker, and that limits her ability to really excite the country around her candidacy. Edwards is a very good speaker and can excite the right audience. And Obama strikes me as having almost JFK-like talent on the podium. He may not ever win the Democratic nomination or be president. But if he were elected, he has the gift to really move the American public….
On the Republican side, there is not a particulary great speaker. Romney may be the best, but he comes across (at this point) as a bit of a phony. McCain is an inspired person, but his oratorial skills are not superior. I think much of the reason so many people are pining for Fred Thompson is because they think he will actually inspire first his party and later the general public. I don’t quite see that with Thompson — he seems a bit laconic to me — but maybe I haven’t heard him in the right setting….
I know that Democrats hate his guts, and he is not well liked by most independents, and now that his personal life has proved to be a total mess the fundamentalists probably don’t like him either, but I find Newt Gingrich (who won’t run) the best choice among Republicans, if you want a creative and bright thinker who speaks well.
When I went to hear John Edwards speak at the Mondavi last year, it surprised me how much hate there was for Hillary among left-wing Democrats. Obama had not yet emerged at that time, and I got the sense that Edwards was the favorite of the left of the Democratic party. However, I think Obama has (at least in a national sense, if not in Iowa and NH) sapped Edwards’s strength. As such, Hillary seems to be helped by having the anti-Hillary left vote split among Obama and Edwards and to a lesser extent the other candidates (such as Kucinich, who has a following among the most ideological voters in the Democratic Party) on her left….
I would be surprised if Hillary does not ultimately win the Democratic nomination (something I predicted in my column some time ago). She is an excellent candidate and is very well prepared to be the president (unlike the village idiot we have now). However, Hillary is an uninspiring speaker, and that limits her ability to really excite the country around her candidacy. Edwards is a very good speaker and can excite the right audience. And Obama strikes me as having almost JFK-like talent on the podium. He may not ever win the Democratic nomination or be president. But if he were elected, he has the gift to really move the American public….
On the Republican side, there is not a particulary great speaker. Romney may be the best, but he comes across (at this point) as a bit of a phony. McCain is an inspired person, but his oratorial skills are not superior. I think much of the reason so many people are pining for Fred Thompson is because they think he will actually inspire first his party and later the general public. I don’t quite see that with Thompson — he seems a bit laconic to me — but maybe I haven’t heard him in the right setting….
I know that Democrats hate his guts, and he is not well liked by most independents, and now that his personal life has proved to be a total mess the fundamentalists probably don’t like him either, but I find Newt Gingrich (who won’t run) the best choice among Republicans, if you want a creative and bright thinker who speaks well.
When I went to hear John Edwards speak at the Mondavi last year, it surprised me how much hate there was for Hillary among left-wing Democrats. Obama had not yet emerged at that time, and I got the sense that Edwards was the favorite of the left of the Democratic party. However, I think Obama has (at least in a national sense, if not in Iowa and NH) sapped Edwards’s strength. As such, Hillary seems to be helped by having the anti-Hillary left vote split among Obama and Edwards and to a lesser extent the other candidates (such as Kucinich, who has a following among the most ideological voters in the Democratic Party) on her left….
I would be surprised if Hillary does not ultimately win the Democratic nomination (something I predicted in my column some time ago). She is an excellent candidate and is very well prepared to be the president (unlike the village idiot we have now). However, Hillary is an uninspiring speaker, and that limits her ability to really excite the country around her candidacy. Edwards is a very good speaker and can excite the right audience. And Obama strikes me as having almost JFK-like talent on the podium. He may not ever win the Democratic nomination or be president. But if he were elected, he has the gift to really move the American public….
On the Republican side, there is not a particulary great speaker. Romney may be the best, but he comes across (at this point) as a bit of a phony. McCain is an inspired person, but his oratorial skills are not superior. I think much of the reason so many people are pining for Fred Thompson is because they think he will actually inspire first his party and later the general public. I don’t quite see that with Thompson — he seems a bit laconic to me — but maybe I haven’t heard him in the right setting….
I know that Democrats hate his guts, and he is not well liked by most independents, and now that his personal life has proved to be a total mess the fundamentalists probably don’t like him either, but I find Newt Gingrich (who won’t run) the best choice among Republicans, if you want a creative and bright thinker who speaks well.
Talk about baggage:
The Demos have a ways to go with implementing their mandate from last fall. Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a “confidence” rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.
The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it’s escalating. The Demos voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for “foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.” Enough Demos joined Repubs to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Demos control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she’d wanted to. But she didn’t. The Demos’ game seems so far to be to go along with the Bush White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.
Talk about baggage:
The Demos have a ways to go with implementing their mandate from last fall. Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a “confidence” rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.
The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it’s escalating. The Demos voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for “foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.” Enough Demos joined Repubs to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Demos control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she’d wanted to. But she didn’t. The Demos’ game seems so far to be to go along with the Bush White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.
Talk about baggage:
The Demos have a ways to go with implementing their mandate from last fall. Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a “confidence” rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.
The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it’s escalating. The Demos voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for “foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.” Enough Demos joined Repubs to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Demos control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she’d wanted to. But she didn’t. The Demos’ game seems so far to be to go along with the Bush White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.
Talk about baggage:
The Demos have a ways to go with implementing their mandate from last fall. Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a “confidence” rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.
The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it’s escalating. The Demos voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for “foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.” Enough Demos joined Repubs to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Demos control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she’d wanted to. But she didn’t. The Demos’ game seems so far to be to go along with the Bush White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.
Hilary Clinton has already been chosen to be the next president, the election has been decided by the party leaders. We need to be nice to her so that she listens to us.
Hilary Clinton has already been chosen to be the next president, the election has been decided by the party leaders. We need to be nice to her so that she listens to us.
Hilary Clinton has already been chosen to be the next president, the election has been decided by the party leaders. We need to be nice to her so that she listens to us.
Hilary Clinton has already been chosen to be the next president, the election has been decided by the party leaders. We need to be nice to her so that she listens to us.
The elite media struggles to capture the essence of the netroots. It’s difficult to characterize this growing political phenomenon when the developments under scrutiny can’t be pinned down. The movement draws its strength from its non-essentiality and remains one step ahead of easy categorization.
The progressive movement should congratulate itself on its ability to escape definition and limitation. Shape-shifting is powerful magic.
There has not been such healthy uncertainty in the political narratives of American life since political parties, partisan penny newspapers and rowdy political clubs arose in the early nineteenth century. Traditional mainstream-media journalists take comfort in the melodramatic roles fulfilled by political heroes and villains. The traditional roles in political narratives and the acceptable courses of action and patterns of behavior could be learned in a week or two by a reporter fresh out of journalism school. But now that easy narrative’s constraints are dissolving.
Internet-centered political action is far more difficult to fit into an easy, melodramatic narrative. Is it a political party? No. Is it a special interest? No, it’s far too diverse in its opinions for that. Is it a competing kind of journalism? Yes, certainly, and no, certainly, depending on whose blog and whose writing you’re talking about. Of course, bloggers are only one corner of this internet-centered activity. There are action-oriented groups, fundraising groups, and virtual think tanks.
A revolutionary consequence of the Internet has been the democratization of information. In the ante-Internet age, elite groups found it easier to control narratives, roles and the possibilities of culture and politics because they could control information. Just as the printing press helped make the Reformation possible, the Internet has made it possible for tens of thousands of political Luthers to nail their demands to doors of power where millions can find them.
The emergence of the shape-shifting netroots actor in our political narratives may prove almost as culturally consequential as the emergence of the Pilgrim colonizers as the protagonists in their own founding legends.
When the roles available to us change, new cultural and political possibilities are opened, and that’s what is taking place today. One reason the conservative netroots has so far been less effective than its progressive counterpart is conservative contentment with traditional roles and stories. Narratives, like other kinds of frames, constrain what we may think and how we may act.
As long as the Internet-centered progressive political movement can escape the traps of their hunters
-–journalists who need the easy story, or political traditionalists clinging to yesterday’s political roles-– their power will continue to grow. The temptation for bloggers will be great to fulfill the roles political insiders and elite media are comfortable with. For instance, the press will treat those bloggers skilled at campaign strategy as members of the consultant class, or maybe as a next generation consultant class. Good analytical thinkers will be referred to as pundits.
But the blogger magic is in the ease with which movement members can shift roles.
Simply, there are souls who work in a variety of ways to achieve a threshold level of power for the progressive movement. Then they make the world better. By making themselves impossible to pin down, they have already improved the place.
The elite media struggles to capture the essence of the netroots. It’s difficult to characterize this growing political phenomenon when the developments under scrutiny can’t be pinned down. The movement draws its strength from its non-essentiality and remains one step ahead of easy categorization.
The progressive movement should congratulate itself on its ability to escape definition and limitation. Shape-shifting is powerful magic.
There has not been such healthy uncertainty in the political narratives of American life since political parties, partisan penny newspapers and rowdy political clubs arose in the early nineteenth century. Traditional mainstream-media journalists take comfort in the melodramatic roles fulfilled by political heroes and villains. The traditional roles in political narratives and the acceptable courses of action and patterns of behavior could be learned in a week or two by a reporter fresh out of journalism school. But now that easy narrative’s constraints are dissolving.
Internet-centered political action is far more difficult to fit into an easy, melodramatic narrative. Is it a political party? No. Is it a special interest? No, it’s far too diverse in its opinions for that. Is it a competing kind of journalism? Yes, certainly, and no, certainly, depending on whose blog and whose writing you’re talking about. Of course, bloggers are only one corner of this internet-centered activity. There are action-oriented groups, fundraising groups, and virtual think tanks.
A revolutionary consequence of the Internet has been the democratization of information. In the ante-Internet age, elite groups found it easier to control narratives, roles and the possibilities of culture and politics because they could control information. Just as the printing press helped make the Reformation possible, the Internet has made it possible for tens of thousands of political Luthers to nail their demands to doors of power where millions can find them.
The emergence of the shape-shifting netroots actor in our political narratives may prove almost as culturally consequential as the emergence of the Pilgrim colonizers as the protagonists in their own founding legends.
When the roles available to us change, new cultural and political possibilities are opened, and that’s what is taking place today. One reason the conservative netroots has so far been less effective than its progressive counterpart is conservative contentment with traditional roles and stories. Narratives, like other kinds of frames, constrain what we may think and how we may act.
As long as the Internet-centered progressive political movement can escape the traps of their hunters
-–journalists who need the easy story, or political traditionalists clinging to yesterday’s political roles-– their power will continue to grow. The temptation for bloggers will be great to fulfill the roles political insiders and elite media are comfortable with. For instance, the press will treat those bloggers skilled at campaign strategy as members of the consultant class, or maybe as a next generation consultant class. Good analytical thinkers will be referred to as pundits.
But the blogger magic is in the ease with which movement members can shift roles.
Simply, there are souls who work in a variety of ways to achieve a threshold level of power for the progressive movement. Then they make the world better. By making themselves impossible to pin down, they have already improved the place.
The elite media struggles to capture the essence of the netroots. It’s difficult to characterize this growing political phenomenon when the developments under scrutiny can’t be pinned down. The movement draws its strength from its non-essentiality and remains one step ahead of easy categorization.
The progressive movement should congratulate itself on its ability to escape definition and limitation. Shape-shifting is powerful magic.
There has not been such healthy uncertainty in the political narratives of American life since political parties, partisan penny newspapers and rowdy political clubs arose in the early nineteenth century. Traditional mainstream-media journalists take comfort in the melodramatic roles fulfilled by political heroes and villains. The traditional roles in political narratives and the acceptable courses of action and patterns of behavior could be learned in a week or two by a reporter fresh out of journalism school. But now that easy narrative’s constraints are dissolving.
Internet-centered political action is far more difficult to fit into an easy, melodramatic narrative. Is it a political party? No. Is it a special interest? No, it’s far too diverse in its opinions for that. Is it a competing kind of journalism? Yes, certainly, and no, certainly, depending on whose blog and whose writing you’re talking about. Of course, bloggers are only one corner of this internet-centered activity. There are action-oriented groups, fundraising groups, and virtual think tanks.
A revolutionary consequence of the Internet has been the democratization of information. In the ante-Internet age, elite groups found it easier to control narratives, roles and the possibilities of culture and politics because they could control information. Just as the printing press helped make the Reformation possible, the Internet has made it possible for tens of thousands of political Luthers to nail their demands to doors of power where millions can find them.
The emergence of the shape-shifting netroots actor in our political narratives may prove almost as culturally consequential as the emergence of the Pilgrim colonizers as the protagonists in their own founding legends.
When the roles available to us change, new cultural and political possibilities are opened, and that’s what is taking place today. One reason the conservative netroots has so far been less effective than its progressive counterpart is conservative contentment with traditional roles and stories. Narratives, like other kinds of frames, constrain what we may think and how we may act.
As long as the Internet-centered progressive political movement can escape the traps of their hunters
-–journalists who need the easy story, or political traditionalists clinging to yesterday’s political roles-– their power will continue to grow. The temptation for bloggers will be great to fulfill the roles political insiders and elite media are comfortable with. For instance, the press will treat those bloggers skilled at campaign strategy as members of the consultant class, or maybe as a next generation consultant class. Good analytical thinkers will be referred to as pundits.
But the blogger magic is in the ease with which movement members can shift roles.
Simply, there are souls who work in a variety of ways to achieve a threshold level of power for the progressive movement. Then they make the world better. By making themselves impossible to pin down, they have already improved the place.
The elite media struggles to capture the essence of the netroots. It’s difficult to characterize this growing political phenomenon when the developments under scrutiny can’t be pinned down. The movement draws its strength from its non-essentiality and remains one step ahead of easy categorization.
The progressive movement should congratulate itself on its ability to escape definition and limitation. Shape-shifting is powerful magic.
There has not been such healthy uncertainty in the political narratives of American life since political parties, partisan penny newspapers and rowdy political clubs arose in the early nineteenth century. Traditional mainstream-media journalists take comfort in the melodramatic roles fulfilled by political heroes and villains. The traditional roles in political narratives and the acceptable courses of action and patterns of behavior could be learned in a week or two by a reporter fresh out of journalism school. But now that easy narrative’s constraints are dissolving.
Internet-centered political action is far more difficult to fit into an easy, melodramatic narrative. Is it a political party? No. Is it a special interest? No, it’s far too diverse in its opinions for that. Is it a competing kind of journalism? Yes, certainly, and no, certainly, depending on whose blog and whose writing you’re talking about. Of course, bloggers are only one corner of this internet-centered activity. There are action-oriented groups, fundraising groups, and virtual think tanks.
A revolutionary consequence of the Internet has been the democratization of information. In the ante-Internet age, elite groups found it easier to control narratives, roles and the possibilities of culture and politics because they could control information. Just as the printing press helped make the Reformation possible, the Internet has made it possible for tens of thousands of political Luthers to nail their demands to doors of power where millions can find them.
The emergence of the shape-shifting netroots actor in our political narratives may prove almost as culturally consequential as the emergence of the Pilgrim colonizers as the protagonists in their own founding legends.
When the roles available to us change, new cultural and political possibilities are opened, and that’s what is taking place today. One reason the conservative netroots has so far been less effective than its progressive counterpart is conservative contentment with traditional roles and stories. Narratives, like other kinds of frames, constrain what we may think and how we may act.
As long as the Internet-centered progressive political movement can escape the traps of their hunters
-–journalists who need the easy story, or political traditionalists clinging to yesterday’s political roles-– their power will continue to grow. The temptation for bloggers will be great to fulfill the roles political insiders and elite media are comfortable with. For instance, the press will treat those bloggers skilled at campaign strategy as members of the consultant class, or maybe as a next generation consultant class. Good analytical thinkers will be referred to as pundits.
But the blogger magic is in the ease with which movement members can shift roles.
Simply, there are souls who work in a variety of ways to achieve a threshold level of power for the progressive movement. Then they make the world better. By making themselves impossible to pin down, they have already improved the place.
it may very well end up gore-gingrich, if both of them end up jumping in.
i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around. of those democrats who are running, edwards is the one that i can live with without too many reservations, but i’m hoping for a gore run in a month or so.
the status quo is seriously broken IMO, and i don’t see any of the democratic candidates offering much of a break from it, save kucinich (who doesn’t really bother to campaign in earnest) and gravel (same).
wish i’d been able to make it to yKos, but it just wasn’t in the cards this year.
as for the value and power of blogging, my take is that the various sites aren’t nearly as important as
1) the new dynamic of enabling horizontal political discussion free of top-down mediation over a huge geographical area, which carries within it the potential for building an organic bottom-up political consensus; and
2) the samizdat function of instantaneously sharing news and information peer-to-peer without having to go through a corporate media chokepoint. secrets are harder to keep these days (which is why we see more disinformation than outright secrecy as a government tactic).
3) the availability of a vastly expanded set of opinions and biases and poltiical discussions to an audience unconstrained by the usual social/racial/regional/national boundaries. anyone logging on and reading has access to anyone else’s words. whewn i see where my blog traffic is coming from, i often see people from all over the world checking in; likewise, when something happens well outside of my physical reality, i can often find eyewitness or insider discussions going on after a quick google search. it’s a small world, after all.
the decentralization of the production and transmission of information is really revolutionary, when you think about it.
it may very well end up gore-gingrich, if both of them end up jumping in.
i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around. of those democrats who are running, edwards is the one that i can live with without too many reservations, but i’m hoping for a gore run in a month or so.
the status quo is seriously broken IMO, and i don’t see any of the democratic candidates offering much of a break from it, save kucinich (who doesn’t really bother to campaign in earnest) and gravel (same).
wish i’d been able to make it to yKos, but it just wasn’t in the cards this year.
as for the value and power of blogging, my take is that the various sites aren’t nearly as important as
1) the new dynamic of enabling horizontal political discussion free of top-down mediation over a huge geographical area, which carries within it the potential for building an organic bottom-up political consensus; and
2) the samizdat function of instantaneously sharing news and information peer-to-peer without having to go through a corporate media chokepoint. secrets are harder to keep these days (which is why we see more disinformation than outright secrecy as a government tactic).
3) the availability of a vastly expanded set of opinions and biases and poltiical discussions to an audience unconstrained by the usual social/racial/regional/national boundaries. anyone logging on and reading has access to anyone else’s words. whewn i see where my blog traffic is coming from, i often see people from all over the world checking in; likewise, when something happens well outside of my physical reality, i can often find eyewitness or insider discussions going on after a quick google search. it’s a small world, after all.
the decentralization of the production and transmission of information is really revolutionary, when you think about it.
it may very well end up gore-gingrich, if both of them end up jumping in.
i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around. of those democrats who are running, edwards is the one that i can live with without too many reservations, but i’m hoping for a gore run in a month or so.
the status quo is seriously broken IMO, and i don’t see any of the democratic candidates offering much of a break from it, save kucinich (who doesn’t really bother to campaign in earnest) and gravel (same).
wish i’d been able to make it to yKos, but it just wasn’t in the cards this year.
as for the value and power of blogging, my take is that the various sites aren’t nearly as important as
1) the new dynamic of enabling horizontal political discussion free of top-down mediation over a huge geographical area, which carries within it the potential for building an organic bottom-up political consensus; and
2) the samizdat function of instantaneously sharing news and information peer-to-peer without having to go through a corporate media chokepoint. secrets are harder to keep these days (which is why we see more disinformation than outright secrecy as a government tactic).
3) the availability of a vastly expanded set of opinions and biases and poltiical discussions to an audience unconstrained by the usual social/racial/regional/national boundaries. anyone logging on and reading has access to anyone else’s words. whewn i see where my blog traffic is coming from, i often see people from all over the world checking in; likewise, when something happens well outside of my physical reality, i can often find eyewitness or insider discussions going on after a quick google search. it’s a small world, after all.
the decentralization of the production and transmission of information is really revolutionary, when you think about it.
it may very well end up gore-gingrich, if both of them end up jumping in.
i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around. of those democrats who are running, edwards is the one that i can live with without too many reservations, but i’m hoping for a gore run in a month or so.
the status quo is seriously broken IMO, and i don’t see any of the democratic candidates offering much of a break from it, save kucinich (who doesn’t really bother to campaign in earnest) and gravel (same).
wish i’d been able to make it to yKos, but it just wasn’t in the cards this year.
as for the value and power of blogging, my take is that the various sites aren’t nearly as important as
1) the new dynamic of enabling horizontal political discussion free of top-down mediation over a huge geographical area, which carries within it the potential for building an organic bottom-up political consensus; and
2) the samizdat function of instantaneously sharing news and information peer-to-peer without having to go through a corporate media chokepoint. secrets are harder to keep these days (which is why we see more disinformation than outright secrecy as a government tactic).
3) the availability of a vastly expanded set of opinions and biases and poltiical discussions to an audience unconstrained by the usual social/racial/regional/national boundaries. anyone logging on and reading has access to anyone else’s words. whewn i see where my blog traffic is coming from, i often see people from all over the world checking in; likewise, when something happens well outside of my physical reality, i can often find eyewitness or insider discussions going on after a quick google search. it’s a small world, after all.
the decentralization of the production and transmission of information is really revolutionary, when you think about it.
“i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around.”
Note that in my 2/7/07 column, I went out on a very thin limb and predicted Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee. It’s not that I believed then that he would win the nomination or that I now believe he will be the nominee. It’s just that I couldn’t see any of the others winning it — Fred Thompson was not in the picture at all back then — while it was hard for me to see what was so objectionable to the Republican Party base about Huckabee. (I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.) One thing that I have not yet seen, but expected to see, was resentment of Romney by Christian fundamentalists on religious grounds. I have known many hard-core born-agains, and without exception, they are prejudiced against Mormons. So either my assumption about this prejudice was just wrong, or that it will show up in the voting booth, but won’t be voiced publicly. If it ultimately does not show up, Romney should win the nomination (assuming Fred Thompson doesn’t enter and catch fire). Romney not only has a gazillion of his own dollars he can infuse into this very expensive process, he can raise far more money from the monied men than Huckabee or any other Republicans can.
“i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around.”
Note that in my 2/7/07 column, I went out on a very thin limb and predicted Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee. It’s not that I believed then that he would win the nomination or that I now believe he will be the nominee. It’s just that I couldn’t see any of the others winning it — Fred Thompson was not in the picture at all back then — while it was hard for me to see what was so objectionable to the Republican Party base about Huckabee. (I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.) One thing that I have not yet seen, but expected to see, was resentment of Romney by Christian fundamentalists on religious grounds. I have known many hard-core born-agains, and without exception, they are prejudiced against Mormons. So either my assumption about this prejudice was just wrong, or that it will show up in the voting booth, but won’t be voiced publicly. If it ultimately does not show up, Romney should win the nomination (assuming Fred Thompson doesn’t enter and catch fire). Romney not only has a gazillion of his own dollars he can infuse into this very expensive process, he can raise far more money from the monied men than Huckabee or any other Republicans can.
“i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around.”
Note that in my 2/7/07 column, I went out on a very thin limb and predicted Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee. It’s not that I believed then that he would win the nomination or that I now believe he will be the nominee. It’s just that I couldn’t see any of the others winning it — Fred Thompson was not in the picture at all back then — while it was hard for me to see what was so objectionable to the Republican Party base about Huckabee. (I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.) One thing that I have not yet seen, but expected to see, was resentment of Romney by Christian fundamentalists on religious grounds. I have known many hard-core born-agains, and without exception, they are prejudiced against Mormons. So either my assumption about this prejudice was just wrong, or that it will show up in the voting booth, but won’t be voiced publicly. If it ultimately does not show up, Romney should win the nomination (assuming Fred Thompson doesn’t enter and catch fire). Romney not only has a gazillion of his own dollars he can infuse into this very expensive process, he can raise far more money from the monied men than Huckabee or any other Republicans can.
“i would consider huckabee to be the strongest candidate the republicans can offer this time around.”
Note that in my 2/7/07 column, I went out on a very thin limb and predicted Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee. It’s not that I believed then that he would win the nomination or that I now believe he will be the nominee. It’s just that I couldn’t see any of the others winning it — Fred Thompson was not in the picture at all back then — while it was hard for me to see what was so objectionable to the Republican Party base about Huckabee. (I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.) One thing that I have not yet seen, but expected to see, was resentment of Romney by Christian fundamentalists on religious grounds. I have known many hard-core born-agains, and without exception, they are prejudiced against Mormons. So either my assumption about this prejudice was just wrong, or that it will show up in the voting booth, but won’t be voiced publicly. If it ultimately does not show up, Romney should win the nomination (assuming Fred Thompson doesn’t enter and catch fire). Romney not only has a gazillion of his own dollars he can infuse into this very expensive process, he can raise far more money from the monied men than Huckabee or any other Republicans can.
By the way, if anyone thinks the fact that Romney is a recent convert on the abortion question will hurt him — obviously he changed his position for political advantage — think again. Reagan converted between his 1976 run for president and his 1980 run. (As governor of California, Reagan was strongly pro-choice. He signed into law the most liberal abortion laws in the country, pre-Roe.) And Reagan’s running-mate, Bush I, changed his views on abortion just two months before the 1980 general election. The hard-core pro-lifers never batted an eye in voting for those late converts.
By the way, if anyone thinks the fact that Romney is a recent convert on the abortion question will hurt him — obviously he changed his position for political advantage — think again. Reagan converted between his 1976 run for president and his 1980 run. (As governor of California, Reagan was strongly pro-choice. He signed into law the most liberal abortion laws in the country, pre-Roe.) And Reagan’s running-mate, Bush I, changed his views on abortion just two months before the 1980 general election. The hard-core pro-lifers never batted an eye in voting for those late converts.
By the way, if anyone thinks the fact that Romney is a recent convert on the abortion question will hurt him — obviously he changed his position for political advantage — think again. Reagan converted between his 1976 run for president and his 1980 run. (As governor of California, Reagan was strongly pro-choice. He signed into law the most liberal abortion laws in the country, pre-Roe.) And Reagan’s running-mate, Bush I, changed his views on abortion just two months before the 1980 general election. The hard-core pro-lifers never batted an eye in voting for those late converts.
By the way, if anyone thinks the fact that Romney is a recent convert on the abortion question will hurt him — obviously he changed his position for political advantage — think again. Reagan converted between his 1976 run for president and his 1980 run. (As governor of California, Reagan was strongly pro-choice. He signed into law the most liberal abortion laws in the country, pre-Roe.) And Reagan’s running-mate, Bush I, changed his views on abortion just two months before the 1980 general election. The hard-core pro-lifers never batted an eye in voting for those late converts.
Thinking again, re: Republican narratives and why conservative netroots have significantly lessening effect on popular opinion:
Rich Rifkin said about the ol’ dinosaur Romney:
“…obviously he changed his position for political advantage…,” meaning the ol’ pol is still solid and capable of exerting his arbitrary authority, in the face of common sense…
The point is, progressive blogger-players are not paying attention to blurbs pandered by the elite media mouthpieces any more, to the benefit of the interests of the people. Not paying attention and making a difference…moving the goal posts to their true positions on a level playing field, as it were,
…as the people cheer!
Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared…
Thinking again, re: Republican narratives and why conservative netroots have significantly lessening effect on popular opinion:
Rich Rifkin said about the ol’ dinosaur Romney:
“…obviously he changed his position for political advantage…,” meaning the ol’ pol is still solid and capable of exerting his arbitrary authority, in the face of common sense…
The point is, progressive blogger-players are not paying attention to blurbs pandered by the elite media mouthpieces any more, to the benefit of the interests of the people. Not paying attention and making a difference…moving the goal posts to their true positions on a level playing field, as it were,
…as the people cheer!
Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared…
Thinking again, re: Republican narratives and why conservative netroots have significantly lessening effect on popular opinion:
Rich Rifkin said about the ol’ dinosaur Romney:
“…obviously he changed his position for political advantage…,” meaning the ol’ pol is still solid and capable of exerting his arbitrary authority, in the face of common sense…
The point is, progressive blogger-players are not paying attention to blurbs pandered by the elite media mouthpieces any more, to the benefit of the interests of the people. Not paying attention and making a difference…moving the goal posts to their true positions on a level playing field, as it were,
…as the people cheer!
Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared…
Thinking again, re: Republican narratives and why conservative netroots have significantly lessening effect on popular opinion:
Rich Rifkin said about the ol’ dinosaur Romney:
“…obviously he changed his position for political advantage…,” meaning the ol’ pol is still solid and capable of exerting his arbitrary authority, in the face of common sense…
The point is, progressive blogger-players are not paying attention to blurbs pandered by the elite media mouthpieces any more, to the benefit of the interests of the people. Not paying attention and making a difference…moving the goal posts to their true positions on a level playing field, as it were,
…as the people cheer!
Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared…
(I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.)
I don’t think being a Creationist is a hindrance for getting the Republican nomination, considering that about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.
(Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml)
(I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.)
I don’t think being a Creationist is a hindrance for getting the Republican nomination, considering that about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.
(Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml)
(I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.)
I don’t think being a Creationist is a hindrance for getting the Republican nomination, considering that about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.
(Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml)
(I didn’t then know that Huckabee is a Creationist — though as a Baptist preacher, that is not shocking.)
I don’t think being a Creationist is a hindrance for getting the Republican nomination, considering that about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.
(Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml)
“Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared… “
Anonymous, what is my ilk? I didn’t know I had any ilk? I just looked around my office and don’t know if any ilk have ever been here. Please enlighten me on this.
“Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared… “
Anonymous, what is my ilk? I didn’t know I had any ilk? I just looked around my office and don’t know if any ilk have ever been here. Please enlighten me on this.
“Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared… “
Anonymous, what is my ilk? I didn’t know I had any ilk? I just looked around my office and don’t know if any ilk have ever been here. Please enlighten me on this.
“Rifkin and his ilk are like dinosaurs wondering why their shape-shifting progressive prey has disappeared… “
Anonymous, what is my ilk? I didn’t know I had any ilk? I just looked around my office and don’t know if any ilk have ever been here. Please enlighten me on this.
“about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.”
Unfortunately, your link does not work. However, I found this June, 2007 Gallup Poll on USA Today, and it answers the question directly:
The poll asked, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years?”
Definitely true 39%
Probably true 27%
Probably false 16%
Definitely false 15%
No opinion 3%
Total true 66%
Total false 31%
I would be shocked if, in general, belief in creationism does not covary positively with low IQ. In other words, if you divide the American populace into 10 deciles based on IQ, from lowest to highest, as you move down the IQ chain, each group will increasingly believe in the creation myth.
“about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.”
Unfortunately, your link does not work. However, I found this June, 2007 Gallup Poll on USA Today, and it answers the question directly:
The poll asked, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years?”
Definitely true 39%
Probably true 27%
Probably false 16%
Definitely false 15%
No opinion 3%
Total true 66%
Total false 31%
I would be shocked if, in general, belief in creationism does not covary positively with low IQ. In other words, if you divide the American populace into 10 deciles based on IQ, from lowest to highest, as you move down the IQ chain, each group will increasingly believe in the creation myth.
“about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.”
Unfortunately, your link does not work. However, I found this June, 2007 Gallup Poll on USA Today, and it answers the question directly:
The poll asked, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years?”
Definitely true 39%
Probably true 27%
Probably false 16%
Definitely false 15%
No opinion 3%
Total true 66%
Total false 31%
I would be shocked if, in general, belief in creationism does not covary positively with low IQ. In other words, if you divide the American populace into 10 deciles based on IQ, from lowest to highest, as you move down the IQ chain, each group will increasingly believe in the creation myth.
“about 51 percent of Americans are also creationists.”
Unfortunately, your link does not work. However, I found this June, 2007 Gallup Poll on USA Today, and it answers the question directly:
The poll asked, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years?”
Definitely true 39%
Probably true 27%
Probably false 16%
Definitely false 15%
No opinion 3%
Total true 66%
Total false 31%
I would be shocked if, in general, belief in creationism does not covary positively with low IQ. In other words, if you divide the American populace into 10 deciles based on IQ, from lowest to highest, as you move down the IQ chain, each group will increasingly believe in the creation myth.
Lots of polling data about creation/evolution:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Lots of polling data about creation/evolution:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Lots of polling data about creation/evolution:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Lots of polling data about creation/evolution:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm