Picture of Tara Smith who blogs at Aetiology.

Picture by the wonderful photographer Lindsay at Majikthise

It’s pretty hard to avoid the topic of Yearly Kos while cruising around the blog-o-sphere this weekend. I myself didn’t go. I originally had a ticket, but ended up getting a job that required me to be around and I didn’t feel like spending the money on the bus for 16 hours to get there. I haven’t actually been reading all that much but I’ve come up with a couple of thoughts surrounding Yearly Kos.

There are things in this world that bother me. I’m not usually a complainer, nor do I find it productive to criticize people who are trying to make a difference. But Kos bothers me. The “organization” as a whole bothers me. Mostly for two reasons, it’s ability to deliver false hope and it’s inability to be fair to women.

The people at Kos generally have one big thing in common besides all being liberal commies - they blog. Many of them, in fact, think that one day they’re going to be huge big bloggers like Kos and are going there to network and get solid advice on how to make it big. But really, all their getting are panels of ill informed people who basically got lucky. On top of this, they think coming together is going to make a big different. But really, who is going to start paying these big salaries? It seems as though people are a little too involved with the idea of the proletariat, either that or they’re going to start sucking the money out of Google ads in a week.

There are a few problems here - people spend too much time blogging and end up with little result. I blogged non-stop for a year and developed a pretty good readership, but they sure as hell weren’t going to start sending me money. This new method of blogging, linking, is just so ineffective. People think that if they create a post that just links to someone else, and they add one or two thoughts of their own that they’ve created a really great post. But really they’re just conforming to the masses of what everyone else writes about. When I think of the “big blogs” I see some common traits. They all have a solid subject that they stick to. They all have fantastics writers. They all write posts that come out of their own heads, not just links from other people (feministing the exception, but women only go there so that someone else can think for them… ) And finally, they all have a hint of personality. (Oh, and many of them have books - which helps)

Now when I read the smaller blogs I see links, topics all over the board, unoriginal writing and nazi control of the comments. But very few of the little blogs are going to change. The problem with picking a subject and ceasing the linkage is that all of the sudden - you become *gasp* an individual. But bloggers are so painfully striving for any ounce of main blog-o-sphere acceptance. They’re willing to blog just like the big leagues and agree with them on all their points and bow down and kiss their feet just for a link. And this weakens the entire liberal blogosphere as a whole. You want a strong blogosphere? Have your own voice and be willing to fight with people on your own side.

So why does this link to Kos? People are there because they see the success of Daily Kos, so if you go to their conference you’re going to be up to par with the “intellectual masses” of their “movement” instead of staying at home coming up with real ways to create a unique voice that will actually be heard. Kossaks are all the same.

The reason I wanted to go to Kos was to see Chris Mooney - btw - not to become a big time blogger. My time with him will come.

Next - women. Have you heard of the BlogHer conference? Believe it or not, it is the biggest conference from women on the blogosphere. The BlogHer conference invited all presidential candidates to either appear or… send surrogates. Edwards and Clinton both sent surrogates. Edwards sent his wife. And then you look, apparently, a week makes a monumental difference in making presidential candidates available because at the Yearly Kos convention, a gathering of bloggers whose main attendees appear to be white and male, all of the candidates showed up… in person… together even!

Alright, alright, that’s not really the fault of Kos - but Markos being a sexist pig is. Gordo has blogged about it before. Gordo isn’t the only one to have written about it, and it’s not even just in the past year… it’s been going on for yeeears. Read the following for more:

Godless Liberal Homo
Skakes’ Sister
Echidne
Shades of Grey

“Yeah, but Katie… Yearly Kos isn’t held by Daily Kos” … Seriously, THEY HAVE THE SAME NAME AND MARKOS IS LIKE IDOLIZED! After the earlier sexist out break at the beginning of the year I was convinced that the feminists of the blogosphere wouldn’t even step three miles close to the Kos convention - but turns out the majority of them were there for a panel. Using the exact same defence of “It’s run by different people” …

Sure, the thing may not be planned by Daily Kos, but they’re affiliated - closely. When you think Yearly Kos - you think Daily Kos. Yearly Kos is the child of Daily Kos and while Markos may not be the one running the show - he’s running the name. It’s too bad all the women had to jump at that chance for stardom while completely leaving their ethics behind them. And the really sad part is that they’re not going to a) convince anyone of anything or b) get any new followers because they people that are they already agree with them, already want to be their friend and already follow their every move for hours upon hours on the net.

Anyway, that’s my rant on Kos.

cross-posted at appletree

Okay, so I always get these e-mails from Feminist groups and magazines and what have yous because I like to keep up to date on things and it’s a lot easier for blog material to get sent to me than it is to go and look for some. AH ha. Right, so today I get an e-mail and these feminists are down right pissed off.

The Washington Post ran an article on Hilary Clinton’s cleavage.

Of course the feminists want us all to e-mail the post and sign petitions to let the post know that this sort of thing isn’t acceptable, and they’re right. It’s not acceptable at all, it’s down right disgusting and degrading. …But also hilarious.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress.

Oh it was not startling you dinkus. They’re BOOBS.

After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor.

…Okay, okay. And it wasn’t until the 50’s that they could vote so really - should they already be trying to run for president? Trying to GET votes??? I think not.

Throughout Clinton’s time as first lady, she wore clothes that were feminine and stately. But sexiness was not part of the image.

Vut are you talking about? Clinton is damn sexy…

Maybe if caging Mexicans out isn’t enough to change some minds, animals will be… hrm.

The Rio Grande Valley thrives with wildlife and interesting plant life. Bearded moss, ebony tress, kiskadee, chachalaca, bobcats, lizards, tortise, ocelots and jaguarundi (2 endangered species of cat)… As if the border that the U.S government plants to erect wasn’t inhumane enough it now threatens the very life and existance of these natural wonders.

 A treaty made in the 1970’s declared that the international boundary to be at the middle of the river and that no construction of any kind could deflect or obstruct the flow of the river harming the other side. The fence could, and probably would, cause flooding thus being in direct violation of the 1970’s treaty.

THe quick solution to this was the use of solid steel landing mats that would be impermeable to water. Obviously, environmental issues were not a part in the decision making. But hey - keeping those damn Mexicans away from unplugging our dying Grandmothers is much more important than preserving land. Secure the frikkin’ borders at all cost!! Woo!

“If you have a fence that runs several miles long, if you are a tortoise or any animal that can’t fly over or go through it, then you have a pretty long distance that you have to go to get water,” said Brown, an outreach manager at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, 225 miles south of San Antonio. Also, “any destruction of any brush is very damaging.”

Screw ‘em, right? Oh but wait - the tourist industry! Money!

In addition, some worry that the barrier — described in some plans as triple-layer metal fencing — will damage the tourism industry along the Rio Grande.

The wild cats, reptiles and at least 500 species of birds attract visitors from around the world who bring the impoverished region $150 million a year. Depending on how far inland the fence is built, it could create a no man’s land north of the river, hurting tourism.

If they’re not going to reconsider the fence for the fact that it’s hideously inhumane, or that it has the potential to destruct and screw up 14 unique ecosystems at LEAST reconsider it for the tourism!!! …[roll eyes]

(Cross posted at appletree)

Who in their right mind would have actually considered the fact that lawsuits against polluters by the Bush Administration has fallen by more than half since Clinton. Penalties and investigation included in this number. A new report by Washington-based Environmental Integrity Project discovered that the Justice Department has recently become extremely reluctant to sue violators.

There have been fewer than 16 lawsuits a year filed against polluters that will not settle since Bush came into action, incomparison there was an average of 52 filed a year in the last 3 years of Clinton. This number is accompanied by a 24% decrease in civil penalties for polluters in the past 10 years … a $26 million dollar decrease between the fiscal years 2002 - 2006 and 1996 - 2000.

Not only did the group find these alarming numbers they also discovered that criminal fines for polluters has dropped 38% under the Bush administration as well as a 23% decrease in the number of new criminal investigations for polluters. An alarming find considering that environmental standards should be on the rise, and companies unwillingness to cooperate should be creating more and more lawsuits. I like this statement that was made:

Shaeffer blamed the declines on EPA staffing shortages, inconsistent policy goals, and weaker regulations and laws, particularly the so-called Clean Air Act. “I don’t think it’s because polluters have gotten nicer,” he said. “If you can’t find cases, it’s because you’re not looking.”

Damn right.

Ontario Government workers have been banned from using facebook.

Facebook is the latest website to be banned by the province, joining YouTube, online poker gambling websites and hardcore sex sites, Government Services Minister Gerry Phillips told the Star.  

I don’t see how the site would have added any sort of value to the workplace. I have pretty strong feelings about the privacy of facebook - my personal profile is limited to those who I allow to see it - which is nice. I don’t have to worry about teachers, profs, government officials, employers etc seeing what I talk about with my friends and say about them - that is an important privacy to have.

Its probably a good thing that these people have been blocked from using it. As a social networking site I don’t see how it could have added any sort of benefits to them in the work place or how personal information about themselves floating around could have been a good thing.