Can anyone explain to me how and why the word "UNDERGROUND" applies here anymore?

[MatrixEscape]

My personal experience with DU goes back to the early days and relates to the very reasons the site was created and what then propelled it to the rather resilient and, now rather popular and income-producing forum that it has become. DU is a success story and that should be applauded. Well, at least as far as success stories, with all their pomp and circumstance and notice insinuates for a larger audience, goes. It seems more like Democratic Mainstream.com, these days.

I think that challenging the idea that the current, Democratic Party as just one side/hand of a larger, more powerful, manipulative body of special interests is more relevant to our interests today, in light of the information we are being made aware of and accessing most recently. Is it so unreasonable and blasphemous to challenge the underlying aspects of the two dominant and impervious parties presented to us and how they might actually be intelligently and pragmatically designed to cater to our baser instincts, needs, and drives while providing channels and outlets that only serve to divert and diminish any outrage that any reasonable insights into the actual mechanisms behind them might serve to engage? Outlets that are totally necessary to forestall and diminish any expected, relentless, powerful, and result-oriented reactions by the masses?

Back in the day, the site seemed far more controversial and relevant, from my POV. It was a very pertinent and needed reaction to a dire political situation unfolding with a tenacious, foreboding rapidity. That to me, was a time when UNDERGROUND deserved its hard-earned, politically subversive and reactionary roots. For many of us who are graduates of times when the word "underground" meant something extremely radical, reactionary, even anarchistic, it seems that today's DU is now managing to subvert the potency of that meaning by catering to more of a mainstream popularity that, on the surface, provides alternative and comprehensive links to news and information, but also manages to be rather conservative in relation to the content posted. It also appears to attract, (and please forgive my diminutive and pejorative implications) the more common net response syndrome that goes like: "I didn't have much time to read anything too long, and I don't have much time or inclination to respond with too many, laboriously thoughtful sentences and paragraphs, but I am with you all the way with my brief notation/kudos/yahoo/yeah/nay/. As if that really demonstrates anything more profound or deep than the simple opinion polls presented here from time to time, and for that matter in the sewers of opinion polls all over the Net -- seemingly meaningful and relevant, but vacuous, ephemeral, and for the most part, manipulative in the sense that they support already strongly media-influenced pablum that the public gets to feel good about by responding to in the positive or negative sense.

The honest fact is that as more people sign-up and tune-in to DU, increasing its hits an popularity, and even overburdening it with news and views that push other, sometimes crucial and vital, topics quickly out of the spotlight, it has reached the point where it is often asked, "Will success spoil _____".

I don't know if Skinner intended for DU to go from a true Democratic UNDERGROUND, to something, (based on controversies and censorship of "unpopular" subjects determined by the growing masses) that is getting to be more and more of a churning plethora of more common news bytes that focus more on the DEMOCRATIC, (though many of us are honestly and sincerely questioning the very foundations and validity of any kind of true, two-party system in place of a two-faced, one-party system of pure manipulation).

It seems to me that the emphasis is now on the idea of the now more easily and profoundly questionable idea of a party that is represented as for the people as opposed to the major, moneyed, well-entrenched players that have their hands in the pockets of both sides that we see well-presented in the clearly corporately-manipulated media. What kind of hope is there from the offerings of the Democratic Party if they are only part of a game that makes one, solidified, profit-making-taking party look like two, only to play both the white and the black on the rigged roulette table of manufactured consent? Hell, I used to call myself an Liberal Democrat, when I saw and believed in those kinds of manufactured distinctions, and the only candidate I could currently support, (based on his consistently clear revelations of what is currently going on) is Ron Paul. He is a Republican, for goodness sakes. I can only find ONE Republican who voices my current, rather well-researched and up-to-date understanding of the real state of our usurped union? Imagine that! Not one Democrat in office has come even close to his boldly exclaimed oratories and unabashed responses to what kind of situation and danger we are in.

And so, many of you can take solace in the two-party system and uphold it, and seek solace in the offerings either one provides based on your powerfully induced conceptions of what makes life work for you right now. I cannot do that in good conscience, and hence, that would make my remarks here worthy of deletion, derision, and flames. Upsetting any status quo can only be done intelligently and with clear understanding, in expectation of those kinds of results. And yet, I venture to propose this heresy to those who are still comfortable and blissfully ignorant, (and you have the right to be) to what the situation at hand implies and will impose upon you, regardless of your compulsion to pick a side and run with it, hoping in full faith that your affiliation will bring something worthwhile and beneficial. You rightfully want what will support, enforce, and continue your way of life. That is the key and crux of where you are totally mistaken, only because you do not see what is behind the machinery that compels you to do so. If you were aware, then the choices presented would be seen as two sides of the very same, self-serving, overpowering entity that manages to present itself as YOUR choice, and privilege, and preferred alliance. It just ain't so. That is a fact if you care to research it carefully and not accept the more tacit, mainstream infusion that popularity has imposed on this once revolutionary and reactionary Internet front.

So, I rest my case. The ideas I represent above are UNDERGROUND, at least in my old-school way. The concept of DEMOCRATIC, based on the meaning of underground from the old-days, is now standing in direct contrast. The two terms, being used here are, to me, not only controversial, but in the light of current revelations and unfolding events, becoming almost polar opposites in intent and meaning.

After all these years, I conclude that the moniker of this site has transformed into a strongly self-contradiction in the dynamic landscape of political terminology -- one that even borders on a rather deceptive for of newspeak that serves to obscure more, by its implied meaning, than it reveals, over all.

Forgive me if I spoiled the party. If DU is just about fun and belonging and venting as a catharsis, then my comments are merely an intrusive affront to the ongoing celebration that the voicing of opinions and links can provide.

If this does not get deleted, then hopefully, it will be a spark that ignites intelligent and heart-felt responses that build on its foundation or tears down the mistakes in its mistaken blueprints and structures.

[boston bean]

1. I have noticed some changes, especially in GD, go into

the dungeons. It is a bit more indepth and more of a discussion.

I do understand what you mean tho.

[ixion]

2. the greatest irony for me is that the WTC fiasco brought me to DU, and now

that topic has been relegated to the dungeon, never to see the light of day.

Other memories:

-- The DU Lounge (what kept us all sane in those days) is no longer shown.

-- Speaking ill of Israel is now considered 'hate' speech by a vocal group.



Yeah, I would agree with you. Over the years, the board has lost it's 'fringe' credentials and would now be considered pretty tame. That does make me a bit sad, as I really enjoyed the days when we DU'er were a rag-tag group of rebels. However, and again with more than a hint of irony, it does speak volumes about the success we've had at helping to bring issues into the mainstream fold.

[Individualist]

34. That was the same thing that brought me here, ixion

I was searching for answers about why warnings were ignored, and I found the answers here. As MatrixEscape pointed out, the site was more controversial and relevant then. I miss those days and the level of discussion that was taking place.

[yurbud]

61. yeah, Israel & 9/11 can't be debated in the big forums. Both are pretty central to what's going on

[Dr.Phool]

3. Shhhh........ The Thought Police are listening.

[liberal N proud]

4. This site must evolve or it will become outdated and useless.

Many of us came here for different reasons, I found DU during the 04 campaign. It is a wonderful site brining us all together to battle the regime at hand and what ever crisis needs our attention.
At the end of the 04 campaign as we were all licking our wounds, a Congressman, now Senator made a speech at our local Democratic Headquarters tell us that to stay involved, we must all become activists.
I would like to think that my participation in DU is in part doing that along with all the other activities that I am involved in politically speaking.
Prior to the 04 campaign the most I was involved in politics was attending a Clinton rally and putting bumper stickers on my car. Much has changed and DU has played a big part in that.

Underground? Maybe not but the name gives it that anti establishment feel.

[MatrixEscape]

8. Yes ...

Thanks. I can relate to your response well, as well as that of others who were courageous enough to do so.

But, you know, that "anti-establishment" feel is a point worth considering. It is that "feel" that sells new cars, keeps us eating pure, artificial, processed crap what is labeled with a rather convincing but totally deceitful, nutrious, healthy feel. It is like the idea of recycling that makes us sort our garbage only to ind out that in some cases, it is all dumped back into the same bin. Then we find out, that no matter how much we get the "feel goods' and greenness of taking that effort, corporations and utilities get more and more license to waste and pollute as much as they please to serve the bottom-line of profit. So, our efforts to "feel good" and appease our needs to be conscientious and involved are most often dwarfed by the Elitist god of exploitation and profit, everywhere we turn. But we can still delude ourselves and feel good about our contribution, ey? That is, even though it proves to be an effort that has little or no impact at all.

I would like to focus more on whatever degree the pragmatic and practical applications of language, (which is purely symbolic and representational) has to offer. A board can hit you in the head and that is rather concrete to your organism. Words and ideas are far more abstract, but we can invest ourselves in whittling them down to something that, by consensus, is closer to what is being represented. That is all we have to go by in this very impression conveyance.

When I say that UNDERGROUND means, from its very inception, a very bold, rather counter-cultural, non-mainstream, meta-political, radical, pre-anarchistic implication, as a pertinent response to an oppressive, exploitive, manipulative, repressive, rapidly encroaching, deceptive, oligarchical, corporative, Elitist, oligarchical boot that stomps on a human face forever, (with an implied sentence of no chance for ever being liberated from its final grasp on Humanity) I don't just feel it, I implicitly understand that, form my balls to my bones. It is the kind of realization that you don't have to wonder about or question. There are no second thoughts or chaotic vacillations with fears about regrets if you might discover you were totally wrong.

DU obviously needs to get back to its roots and grow new flowers based that could really flourish for the sake of the impending agendas that many find undeniable and factual in their import and implications. From there, it could become, once again, the shining star that it started out as. Of course, the risks are implied. The risks are the underlying factor. It is the risk takers who always discovred new thngs, made great changes, overturned the accepted fallacies of the past and were the greatest threats to every historical status quo of history. Without the risks well all know we have to take, the sentence is to fall back into the Matrix with nothing but the reward of pretending to do something that is only pre-ordained and in total alignment with the plans of the machines -- the program, if you will.

We can only wonder if DU has that kind of balls? I think many of its readers do, both male and female. Maybe this is where the change comes? Maybe this is where the introspection of the site's founders come into play and we get to see some real, pro-active change, evolution, revolution, and a Carpe Dium that could rock the slow boat to oblivion that we are all forced to travel on.

Maybe I am deluding myself that the admins of this sight could ever look upon my humble offerings for such a dramatic and revolutionary utilization of mainstream popularity with anything but disdain because of what they might have to wager in that respect?

[lostinacause]

41. Perhaps instead of prescribing to one school of thought it would be best

if we look, as a group of (somewhat) independent thinkers, at political landscape taking what we find best from the ideologies. It has become far too easy to customize the points of view that one comes across. In shaping DU in your vision it would become something less then it currently is.

I would also suggest you read some of the current literature in environmental economics, in particular on environmental Kuznets curves. The empirical data has positive view on the coexistence of economic growth and improving environmental standards.

[Warpy]

21. Underground? You bet we are

If you have any question about that, look at the average post here and then compare it with what the conservative party leadership has been saying.

[radfringe]

5. we're still considered part of the grass roots

and grass roots are underground

[MatrixEscape]

10. What do you mean?

Grass roots to me is the most visceral and tangible of movements.

A good example of grass-roots is out in the country, (where grass and roots are more important, and prevalent, and vital to life itself, and always have been). In that sense, the Republican/Neocon revolution that has helped to propel us to this dismal point in our political history was founded and driven by an exploitation of the needs and desires of grass-roots people who had strong faith and belief, but were denied the benefits of the kind of critical thinking and Elitist reasoning that were always designed to eploit and overcome their kind of naiveties. Now, don't get me wrong, I live with them and their kind of wisdom and knowledge could totally outdo most of you in a test of survival in nature and without all the artificially-induced factors that your own, rather naive survival depends upon right now.

We, (meaning DU) might be considered grass roots, but that is startlingly to look like some form of watered-down, purely function diminutive term in that respect. Should we really succumb to what we are considered when it has very little relation to what you are implying?

Grass roots would not just be about your interactions on the Net with people you don't know and seem to share some very special, focused, and self-absorbed, rather cathartic interests with. I am sorry to divest you of that notion. You could call that cyber-grass-roots, but it is not anywhere near what the idea applies to.

Grass roots is you, your family, your friends, AND your community in a relationship, interaction, debate, and a resulting accord about what is really at hand and what most impacts everyone who is involved directly, both in the present and future. It is then about deciding when and how to act, move, react, and respond in very certain and serious ways to the impending and encroaching aspects of outside interests that may or may not be in harmony with your own. It is then, about looking out for your own in a larger, more concerted way.

So, let's not water down the idea of grass roots and what it means. The Net is no excuse for that, despite the brevity and simplicity of how people choose to reply for the sake of their own satisfaction and personal sense of activism.

In that case, DU is neither UNDERGROUND or GRASS ROOTS. It is merely serving to be a more popular opinion generating outlet for political rubber-necking without much in the way of a demonstrable impact on the processes enacted and enforced by the powers that be. It serves as nothing more than a low-risk, steam-valve for the disenchanted with little in the way of demonstrable, impacting, and clear results. In other ways, it merely supports the prevalent illusion that a two-party system has anything more to offer to us than a means to manipulate large numbers of people to play a game that has been well-defined and charted in a sub rosa manor and is only subject to the powers of knowledge, action, and bravery on the part of the populace.

Remember that the Neo-republican debacle was a manipulation that injected itself into the REAL grass roots of America using every form of manipulation and deception they could muster to capitalize on their particular forms of naivty and distrust of conventional intellectualism and book learning. And their preachers and local politicians lead the way. It is not about dumb and smart, but what kind and who doles it out.

[mmonk]

6. Everything except rightwing extremism

is underground now. People gravitated here because there is a lack of reality based discussion elsewhere. So it has changed a little (and maybe some change of the concept of democratic). But some of the old guard is still here.

[marions ghost]

15. as u say

'everything except rightwing extremism' is underground now. True (with only a few notable exceptions).

I have always taken the name Democratic Underground to be ironic, somewhat humorous. While it refers to underground movements which have changed the course of history, it also is SO obviously NOT underground (in fact it is accessible to all, at least to read). Can anything on the net be "underground" by definition?

On the other hand DU does seem to support a greater voice for those more on the left end of the Democratic spectrum. We have been underground for many years but we are emerging now.

DU is what it is, a dynamic political forum. No need to take the name too symbolically, with all due respect to those "who have gone before" on DU. I can see that some are nostalgic for those days which were before my time here. But I would not equate those days with "Underground" and now as "Aboveground." That's too concrete for such a fluid medium IMO.

Still, there are some interesting observations about then and now here.

[manic expression]

31. That's not really true at all

thinking the Democrats in power are "underground" is just masturbation IMO. The Democrats are JUST as supportive of the system as the Republicans are in most cases. They'll disagree on the small stuff, but it fundamentally boils down to capitalist A and B teams.

[mmonk]

65. That really wasn't I was saying.

I was talking about just how far right the political climate out in America has become (thereby forcing more and more people out of what is now considered the political mainstream and in some cases here which has had an effect). I'm not making a case current establishment democrats are underground.

[TerdlowSmedley]

7. I don't know. Somehow, "mainstream" sounds so icky anymore.

"Rank and file"? That has a nice pro-labor ring to it.

[Buzz Clik]

9. You and I have been posting here about the same amount of time.

Your questions are one that struck me early on, and I have had some brief conversations with the administration of DU. The answer was seldom the one I wanted to hear, but it was always consistent.

The emphasis of this site is Democratic, not Underground. If you are looking for a site strictly to criticize Democrats, this isn't it. The DU certainly tolerates criticims of Dems in many contexts, but it does not tolerate dragging down Democratic candidates in favor of GOP or third-party candidates.

This question of yours is certainly interesting:

Is it so unreasonable and blasphemous to challenge the underlying aspects of the two dominant and impervious parties presented to us and how they might actually be intelligently and pragmatically designed to cater to our baser instincts, needs, and drives while providing channels and outlets that only serve to divert and diminish any outrage that any reasonable insights into the actual mechanisms behind them might serve to engage? Outlets that are totally necessary to forestall and diminish any expected, relentless, powerful, and result-oriented reactions by the masses?

It's neither unreasonable nor blasphemous to challenge the Democratic mainstream line of thought at DU. It's done every day by long-time DU residents and newbies alike.

Your concerns about the loss of the "underground" aspect of DU is interesting and, as you suggest, is the direct result of the amazing success of DU. The General Discussion forum of DU has turned into a seething, blinding scroll of snippy remarks, stupid polls, and tiringly repetitive "breaking news" items. If you want to engage in lengthy intellectual discussions, GD is to be avoided at all costs. But, if your interest is in many of the other issues burning today, there are forums to accomodate this. You can battle or agree with people who are convinced that 9/11 was the brainchild of GWB, that genetically modified crops are being used to control the world, or that theism/atheism is the refuge of the intellectual inadequate.

In my view, the DU has evolved from a small, underground newsletter to a full blown electronic newspaper/bulletin board/opinion forum. Growing pains? Yeah, maybe. But it works for me.

[EFerrari]

11. Does anyone have Skinner's post on the Golden Age of DU?

:)

[Avalux]

12. Sounds as if your complaint is more about the Democratic Party -

The name of this site - it was created during the dark days after the presidency was taken from Gore and does align itself with the Democratic Party. There are other sites out there that criticize both parties if you aren't happy with what's going on here.

[EST]

13. A rose, by any other name...?

Other than a primal need to belong to and operate under the auspices of an ostensibly secret revolutionary or counter revolutionary organization, I see no real need to spend much time worrying about whether or not the imprimatur of an SDS or some such like minded hidden influence creator is necessary.

Throughout history, as the participants in any important counter culture grow old and fat and the vibrant group to whom they once owed allegiance and fealty becomes mainstream, there is always some bitterness and sorrow. The high minded goals and truths about desperate needs of society start becoming commonplace and mundane-the way things are-and nobody cares.

The only cure, for the malady of finding that when one achieves most of the driving corrections that must be made to save society one becomes irrelevant, is permanent war. That we do not need.

There will be another group of young turks along soon enough, desperate to put their own stamp on society and convinced that their own brand of "the way it oughta be" will remain vital forever.

I don't worry too much about names; the real need, now, is for all of us to roll up sleeves and get busy, or stay busier, at following through. We need to create a society so liberal another group of neocons is guaranteed. We've only begun.

The time is now to get what we came for and Democratic Underground is a name that represents, and will represent, the magnificent emblem of a group of forward thinking people, the best that society has to offer.
We can now get into the inevitable harness and finish the job that brought us together...there is more work to be done than we can ever achieve and that is grand.

[lostinacause]

38. I disagree with you statement "we need to create a society so liberal another

group of neocons is guaranteed." This is foolish. The extreme polarization that you suggest, if matched with similar behavior from the other side would lead to a vicious cycle going from one extreme to the other. The result would be both parties primarily working to tear down the other's policies rather then building on and improving of policies in place.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pacalo]

20. Please explain what you mean by "this is Skinner's personal party".

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. As in "this is Skinner's website", I imagine

The DU Admin set the rules, and basically determine what people are banned for. They've decided not to go for 'ideological purity', so anyone who is sort of a Democrat can start off here. Some things are held to be disruptive, and that can get a few people banned, but most Democrat-related people can stay here, so the membership grows.

Personally, I think it's very difficult to stop lots of "me too"-type posts on a website, unless you have an explicit rule saying all posts must be substantive - which takes a lot of moderating, and will end up being highly subjective - far more controversial than anything that currently takes place on DU. So in practice we have to put up with a GD with more heat than light, and a Lounge for trivia and in-jokes.

DU was 'underground' originally, I understand, because it continued protesting the Supreme Court decision in 2000 was illegitimate, after the Democratic leadership had accepted it. After 6 years, that can't really be the main reason for the site's existence. It was sort of 'underground' by protesting strongly against the invasion of Iraq - and the parts of the Democratic Party that went along with the invasion have largely come much closer to DU thinking since then. That is surely a success for DU (not DU on its own, of course - it's not that powerful).

As others are pointing out in this thread, the typical DU candidate preference is more progressive than the polls of Democratic party members show. So it's not quite 'mainstream' yet. But since I joined in 2003 (before the OP - presumably he was lurking for a couple of years, or was allowed to rejoin under a different name after a banning), the emphasis has been on working within the Democratic Party. Getting hung up on the 'underground' part of the name seems silly.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. I do not taunt posters

and I only asked for the names of paid Republican operatives on other sites. You don't seem to be able to understand my posts. I am confident the moderators do, and that they have no problem with my posts at all.

[EST]

24. The solution for creeping or overt cynicism has historically

proven to be "work." Almost fifty years ago, in response to cynical muttering and the attitude derived from life as a small cog was addressed by a crusty old regional manager of the corporation I was working for.

His response to the concerns of us small but essential cogs was, "The the best cure for an attitude problem is a good, healthy shit and a walk around the block."
I, personally don't give a damn what motivations drove anyone to do something good and valuable, benefiting many, or as another politician cum dramatist put it in a particularly well scripted line, "In the real world, results tend to trump intentions."

Bitterness and cynicism are never a consequence of the group or the activities of like minded fellows; they are the trappings one carries into the fray and remain only as long as one chooses.
 I am no knee-jerk defender nor fawning sycophant for anyone or any purpose, but I can recognize when someone has performed well at something important.
This group owes its existence and continued success to the thousands who play here, with surprisingly powerful and effective participants, solace seekers, influence peddlers, whatever, doing real service to the causes we feel important, in equally surprising numbers.
It may have been Sisyphus's boulder, but we all bear the responsibility, and should be acknowledged for pushing it up the hill.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Jaysus!

So much for free-flowing opinion. You just made the OP's point.

[kikiek]

35. How ludicrous to suggest that he controls the postings and thoughts of over 100,000 people. You'd

have to be on the other side of the isle for that. Democrats/Progressives are free thinkers. Funny thing is the media likes to hype how the democrats don't all agree on issues. They act like it is a bad thing. Look where walking in lock step has gotten this country. Spiraling out of control, and hopefully it can be saved. One thing you can be assured of is that they don't control the thinking of posters on this board. No one would dare try. But you do have to be thinking and not disrupting.

[skipos]

16. If this were truly DemocraticMainstream.com 35% of us would be supporting HRC

and 1% of us would be supporting Clark and Kucinich. And about 45% of us would support gay marriage bans.

DU doesn't represent your average Democrats.

[rman]

17. Kucinich is not mainstream, nor is Hugo Chavez

Yet many DU-ers support both.

[yurbud]

62. I'd be happier if either of those guys were in the White House--sorry, corprocrats

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. The ideas expoused on DU are very underground for the area I

live in. People in my community are face-licking dogs. They recognize each other by the subordinate games they play with each other. But to actually discuss things in an intellectual way? Heathen libruls!

[valerief]

19. Coca Cola removed its cocaine but didn't change its name. nt

[unblock]

33. it no longer contains cola nut either :)

:hi:

[otherlander]

66. I don't want this website to become sugar water!

Even if it does have a shiny container. 0_o

[SaveElmer]

22. Los Angeles Lakers....

How many lakes in Los Angeles....?

They were the Minneapolis Lakers before they moved...

But if they changed their branding now they would lose money...

If DU changed its branding now, it would lose alot of its influence!

[fishnfla]

23. maybe we should change it to: runonsentences.com

eom

[EST]

29. Heehee!

One important result of DU participation--everybody's now a literary critic!:toast:

My own writing and thinking habits had grown pretty sloppy over time but the need to communicate clearly and say what is actually meant have improved considerably by hanging around this place, plus, I learned to touch-type, something I'd never had time to practice at, before.
Clarity and precision in speech and writing leads to clarity in thinking. My experience of the internet in general, contrary to earlier conceit, has been that those on the ossified rabid right wing prefer to express their personalities by clinging to lousy writing and simplistic, graphic, cheap ideas, while those on the left, perhaps more thoughtful by nature, seem to tend toward trying to improve, technically and contextually.

[earth mom]

25. I hear you. I would like to be able to discuss 911 in GD.

Because putting it in the dungeon does not give it the respect or light of day it demands and is due.

Also, since I haven't been here since the beginning, I can't comment on how much DU has changed since day one, but I am bothered that so many outstanding voices I remember from when I first became a member have been silenced or rarely appear around here anymore. Is this a result of censorship of some kind or is it that the naysayers and disinfo agents are so damn obnoxious and relentless that they have chased many good kick ass people away? :(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I've been a Democrat for 41 years but owe no allegiance to The Party.

To my way of thinking, a political party is but a means to an end. The party, in order to achieve power, must compromise between the various factions making up the party which, inevitably, leads to conflicts between the factions. It also is compelled to compromise with the other powerful sources that make up our society and compete with the Republicans for their support. At other times, it must compromise with the other party to achieve it's purpose even if it runs counter to the supposed "ideals" of the party. All of which renders the statement, "I am a Democrat" into a meaningless slogan unless used only as an indication of which party one is registered in. Yet, some here, are compelled to identify themselves as "Real Democrats" and have made The Party into an untouchable irreproachable sacred cow above criticism.

I have, over the years, given up on the notion that either of the two parties "stand" for much of anything other than getting and retaining power. And, in order to achieve that purpose, they will do anything, say anything, sacrifice anything or anyone.

And, after acquiring power, Lord Acton's axiom automatically kicks in.

For me, I'll go along with one of the founders of the Democratic Party:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Lost-in-FL]

27. I'm sure Skinner thought

that someone would ALWAYS complaint. If all the administrators here at DU would implement or consider every single comment done about this site, it would be gone by now. I looked again at the main page and the name isn't "Liberal Underground" or "Green Party Underground".

[Le Taz Hot]

30. Outstanding post.

Very well written and thank you for the time you spent preparing it. I can tell you why *I* post one-liners so often. Its that I've spent literally days preparing a post just to watch it sink to the second page within 15 minutes. And yet, it was just a couple of weeks ago we saw how many posts on Anna Nicole Smith? I kept waiting for them to drop but they remained on page 1 for hours. A couple of them even days.

Skinner swears there was no "golden age" to DU but as a subscriber since 2001, I have a different perspective and I happen to disagree with him. In the olden days, we would NOT have seen 2,565 posts regarding Anna Nicole Smith.

Has DU slipped in integrity in its political discourse? I think so. However, I have to give kudos to DU for expansion into the areas of research, activism, and all the other interest forums that are now available.

[JNelson6563]

36. Hear, hear!!

Well said LTH.

GD has morphed into a sort of lounge where people regularly post vanity posts, tabloid crap (Anna Nichole, etc.) and other worthless stuff. I am often disappointed to see how many threads are about DU/DUers. Much like the "media" likes to discuss the "role of the media" in their own created "big stories". GDP has pretty much morphed into a primary mud-pit. LBN is still as it was and in Skinner's "golden age" post I think he inadvertently conceded the rest of DU has been allowed to change in referring to to LBN as he did.

I've alerted on countless posts that should've been booted to the lounge with only a handful of them being sent there. I now realize that this current style of acceptable discussion is a much bigger draw. It is easier for everyone to participate with less and less effort.

There are still some fabulously informative and bookmarkable threads. Sadly these often drop out of sight quickly (likely missed by many), squeezed out by what passes for discussion that closely follows what the corporate media has as their current (useless) topic du jour.

DU has changed greatly. There's nothing to be done about it but to put the time and effort elsewhere. My personal choice is my local county party as opposed to a different internet activity.

Julie

[The Straight Story]

43. Tossing out my take on your post and how maybe we can make it better

If I were to guess why things have changed as they have I would say that how people interpret the usage of something has changed - and maybe that is not bad.

There is the politics area one can post in of course.

GD seems to be a mash of all the other forums, hence the term 'general'. Everything from the news of the day to crimes, politics, etc seem to find an outlet here as they are things which affect or interest us in a 'general' way.

As DU has grown I think more and more people have posted things of which you speak into a more categorized area, from the 9/11 to the Israel/Palestine and on and on. Perpetual topics which have a large flux of postings not only deserve their own forum, they help those topics from being lost in the general shuffle. They may be more slow moving forums but that is good as the relevant info does not sink.

If I were to make a proposal: Allow forums/areas you select to show the latest posts in GD so you see them, as do others that subscribe to them, so you (and me/others) don't have to hop forum to forum to read/respond. OR have the big forums' postings also echo over here so people can choose one forum to see all, but if they want to post a new topic to it they have to go into the forum (though they can post a reply from within gd obviously bu clicking on the thread).

[davsand]

37. There actually WAS an "Underground" section here in the earlier days.

It was limited access. That section was abandoned (maybe I should say removed?) after trolls started up even in there. The really early days of DU were just over run with trolls and disrupters. THAT is how mods came to be--because it was more than Skinner, Earl and Elad could keep up with by themselves.

DU has changed a lot over the years--this much is true. It used to be that it was very much a community with a feeling very much like progressive haven. There was political debate--very much so--but it was colored by the recognition that we were all on the same side of the argument. Some days I miss that feeling, but I also realize that the website has grown a huge amount from the early days when 1000 posts really WERE a big deal, and there WAS no Lounge.

DU was formed at a time when there was not much out there on the web for progressives. There was Salon and a few other smaller places, but there really WERE very limited options unless you wanted to go out on the public boards and get called a "commie" for thinking health care needs to accessible to everyone or for saying that the chimp is a bad choice. (Been there, done that, got the bald spots to prove it where I ripped my hair out trying to talk sense to trolls.)

DU was a haven and a place to go to find like minded people. At that time, we progressives were very much feeling like we had been forced "underground." (To be honest, sometimes I still feel that way when folks in my local Dem party call me "conservative" for being associated with Labor.)

DU was a news source, in many ways, back then, because it was a place to find--in ONE spot--the news articles that the local or national media didn't choose to follow up on or even report. Very often, you'd see articles at OTHER websites that credited DU for calling attention to that particular article. We had the added benefit of people all over the place that provided local info on stories. There is a big difference when you read, "I was there, I SAW this..."

DU IS a place owned by Skinner and Earl (and Elad too!) and it is up to them STILL what it is called and how it is run. I see some of what goes on here as being a LOT like getting invited into somebody's house and then bitching that the dinner served is not good enough or the drapes are ugly. Yeah, we might give a little cash sometimes--just like you might take a bottle of wine to a dinner party--but it sure as hell doesn't give me any rights beyond what my host grants me.

Lest I sound all high and mighty, I HAVE complained at times too. I ran afoul of the powers that be one time for making the argument that maybe it is ok for a Republican to be allowed (openly) on here simply so we CAN debate and discuss. I also threw an unholy fit about the banner ads (and I still HATE the f**king things because they slow load time on dial-up a huge amount!) and you can see that I"m still here and the ads are still here, and openly GOP folks are not...

This is not MY personal house (I don't own it) and I choose to accept that condition. I can leave at any time I choose to--nobody is compelling me to stay. I'll make that same statement about the DNC, the local Dem party and any OTHER social, political, or charitable organization I participate it.

It is what it is--call it whatever you want to by whatever name suits you--Skinner, Earl, and Elad called it DU and I am here because they do what they do.

Regards!



Laura

[Lost-in-FL]

39. ...

:applause:

[EFerrari]

42. Well put, Laura

:applause:

[DKRC]

46. You summed up why I am here

DU was a haven and a place to go to find like minded people. At that time, we progressives were very much feeling like we had been forced "underground." (To be honest, sometimes I still feel that way when folks in my local Dem party call me "conservative" for being associated with Labor.)

DU was a news source, in many ways, back then, because it was a place to find--in ONE spot--the news articles that the local or national media didn't choose to follow up on or even report. Very often, you'd see articles at OTHER websites that credited DU for calling attention to that particular article. We had the added benefit of people all over the place that provided local info on stories. There is a big difference when you read, "I was there, I SAW this..."

I'm new. I don't have your history with this site. What I do have is a need to find real news and I trust the people who post it here to have original source links so I can read it for myself before passing the info on to others. I read more than I post. I learn alot from the considered opinions I find here. I'm writing & calling my reps both at state and federal levels more now than at any time in my life because I'm aware of what is happening in our country. I'm able to tell neighbors, and strangers at the store, what I've read here that we're not getting from the corporate media. My daughter is passing it on to her classmates at school. These 12/13 year olds are paying attention. They're awake in a way I wasn't at their age.
We're spreading the word in our community because of DU. That's grassroots to me.

*Edited for my typical typos.

[applegrove]

40. With it's growth in size the DU has become less intimate. That is the one

big difference I notice. Still important stuff is discussed every day - it is just a bigger pond and as thus I think represents the Democratic Party pretty well. Perhaps some other sites will build themselves and become that spot of new ideas and intimacy. Such is the organics of systems and things that are alive..like the DU.

[Nikki Stone1]

44. I asked for a Snake Pit forum for all the Anna Nicole kind of crap, but got slammed for it

Perhaps those who are truly progressive and appalled need to make a new forum. I'd be for that.

[marions ghost]

45. I think

you are more on the right track with being more positive & proposing a new forum where one can be sure there will be no Anna Nicole crap. Putting all the "crap" in one place--the Snake Pit-- is more like eliminating it altogether. There would be too much dissension over what is crap and what has socio-political merit.

So what would your new forum look like?

[BlooInBloo]

47. Because Skinner says it does, and it's his site.

[TheBobo]

48. Almost all of you missed Matrix's point

First a couple disclaimers: I have no history with this site. I have read all the posts in this thread. I do not aim to speak for others, so please take what i say as openly reformulated through my lens.

Almost all of you missed Matrix's point.

When a two-party system serves to cloak the same establishment interests it gives you the false choice between, ideological acceptance of one over the other replicates the power relationship established in the first place. In other words, in cases where Democratic and Republican platforms do not differ in substantive ways, but appear to do so, choosing one over the other as a matter of principle (or worse, as a "free and informed choice absent of party affiliation"), only reinscribes the dominant power relationship between: Establishment and you.

Matrix goes on to identify DU as part of this problem, for losing its Underground sense. I first joined DU about two years ago, at the ripe, revolutionary age of 15. I joined because of the word "Underground." I then proceeded to do nothing, until now, when I've recently become more engaged in politics (after becoming engaged in activism).

For real transformative social change to occur (which, as progressives, should be a primary concern of our's), we must fundamentally change power relations. Let me repeat, we must fundamentally change power relations. This is where i agree with Matrix that insofar as DU loses its "Underground" sense, where Underground implies against-the-grain, subversive, transformative, it loses its purpose.

I don't couch DU's purpose as the current-day purpose of its founders, or in some sort of original-intent purpose of old members, but as what should be the purpose of progressives--to radically alter power relationships (because only through a radical change in power relations does substantive, lasting change of any kind become both thinkable and possible).

Now here is where i disagree with Matrix (or maybe i'm reading him or her wrong). It seems that Matrix's posts suggest she or he finds no recourse in the two-party system whatsoever, and only marginal solutions (solutions outside the two-party system) are acceptable as radical enough.

I think that's silly. Understandably bitter, but silly nonetheless. First of all, any solution claiming to be outside a dominant system is necessarily tainted by that system, because in order to prove its marginal and radical nature it *has* to define itself oppositionally to the dominant system. In other words, large parts of that radical party's ideology will be devoted to countering dominant ideology - and thus is defined *by* dominant ideology. ("I'm radical! Follow me!" - that statement really says, "I'm radical *because* i am *not* republican or democrat - here is how i'm not either of those, now follow me". Note that its emphasis is on what it is not. That's self-definition in terms of the Establishment.)

That definition-in-terms-of-Establishment is problematic because, one, the Establishment dictates your agenda, two, it is so so so easy to be co-opted. Radical-party says "We're radical, we're NOT imperialist!" Democratic party co-opts by saying "we're just as radical, we think Iraq was a mistake!"
Mainstream America buys that, and no change occurs as Democrats wet themselves to stop pulling the budget for the Iraq war (which is by the way how legislative bodies had successfully stopped imperialist Kings in history. but oh well.)


Here is my proposal for thinking about problem-solving and social change. I try to view the world through one lens - universal human rights. That's pretty much it, i support what i think furthers that, and oppose that which i believe detracts from it. Yeah, it's anthropocentric, yeah i know it's not perfect.

But here's how it's radical: It means i have no permanent ties. I'll support whoever does what furthers my beliefs. That's independence from Establishment ties right there.

It's also really appealing. To mainstream and marginals alike. Human rights, who *doesn't* like human rights?

It's also really easy to defend - if someone comes out as against human rights..they're in a tough spot already. Yes, you will say, "But Gonzalez! But Guantanamo! But but but!"

And i will say, yes, on to my solution for DU.


Here is what i propose for DU.
ACTIVISM. You mean nothing and are wholly irrelevant if you do not act. For example, i'm trying to reorganize and make sense of the "FIVE-STAR Activist Resource Thread" in Activist HQ, which is really a lot of useful information in a useless form-entirely unorganized.

I think the forum organization here is wack too. I hate walking into Activist HQ and being bombarded with fifty new petition threads to not be able to find a meaningful discussion of Activist strategies. Instead, each issue forum (environment, whatever the others were) should have a subforum for petitions.

Thus the environmentally minded, who are most likely to participate in environmental petitions anyway, can do so at their leisure.

You may say, "but we should sign *every* petition!" I'll say, "no, activist energies are limited. we should spend them as we see fit."

The Activist HQ should become a forum where activists of different stripes discuss different strategies, different case studies, and organize of larger cross-issue or cross-geographical things like rallies. For example, Activists could discuss how to recruit and retain members in a Young Democrats club, could discuss past anti-war rallies at Washington as a case-study, and could organize around Amnesty International-sponsored rallies taking place during March 26-29 in states with Chinese embassies to call for action in Darfur.


I guess what i'm saying can be boiled down in a few sentences:
1. The System is rigged.
2. Your choices can still be subversive if they operate with a mind towards radically altering power relations.
3. DU should function as a nexus for this subversive agenda.
4. Be an activist. Act. now.

It's time to put up or shut up.

[stnmann]

49. Doesn't apply, as far as I can see.

I can't find anything provocative oin this board, so help me out here.

I want to start a thread titled:

John F. Kennedy is still the world standard, where leadership is concerned.

Can we discuss that. And the onlt reference that is appropriate, in my opinion, is JFK: in his own words.

http://surftofind.com/leadership

Now isn't that a radical idea?

[jeffrey_X]

52. It's a name....it may not be fitting any longer as times have changed,

but from a business and marketing perspective it's a recognizable brand.

[Madspirit]

53. Yay! The OP

I am of the far far left and I hear people here refer to us as "idiots", "loonies" same as I hear from Rethugs about us. I also hear how we give Democrats a bad name, etc. It's depressing but it will not sway me to be more Establishment. I've been watching people compromise themselves since the late 60s and early 70s ended.

I just go roll one and put on some Grateful Dead and watch the Right-Wingers of both parties, eat their own. ULTIMATELY, I still think we will prevail because we want a real change. A REAL change. ...and a REAL change is all that's going to save us. I kind of still want a revolution.

Things are really pretty ugly...homelessness, wars, poverty, degradation, mental illness rising like a plume, suicide, violence, the hungry, the uninsured, the walking wounded.

...and then the ones in the middle. They all have IPods, two cars, gift certificates for Taco Bell and a giant flat-screen tv, so they don't have to see the lower ones.

...and then there's the ones on the top.

People will die but if things don't change, there will be no world.

I thought "Underground" represented those of us who feel this way. It's what the word has always meant in the past, in the world. As I said, we get called names here same as we get called names at Ann Coulter's site.

Thanks for the OP.
Lee

[TheBobo]

54. subscription?

is there a way to subscribe to threads so you'll be notified by email or the like when responses occur? i'd like to see what people have to say regarding the substance of this thread, but it's time-consuming and tiresome to have to hop around this forum looking for it

how do i subscribe to this thread instead?

[Madspirit]

56. Hit "Bookmark this Thread" at the top n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. It seems to me that one of the worst problems with this board is that

not only do DLC posters, in bed with the Republicans, and antipathetic to progressive reforms, post the worst kinds of reactionary guff on here, but far worse, right-wing operatives, posing as left-wingers, act as "agents provocateurs" and disruptors, causing mayhem.

The classic case was when Nancy Pelosi set a five-day week for the denizens of Capitol Hill and set out an impressive agenda of things she wanted them to get though within what 3 days? Can't remember. A quite brief period. Yet, precisely at that point, unbelieveably, some cretins on here started vilifying the Dems for being watered-down Republicans an never acting like Democrats!
Yet, if ever there was cause for jubilation and immense optimism, it was then - and they've not been dong too bad since, have they?

[Lena inRI]

57. Yeah. . .I hear ya, MatrixEscape. . .

mainly this point:

After all these years, I conclude that the moniker of this site has transformed into a strongly self-contradiction in the dynamic landscape of political terminology -- one that even borders on a rather deceptive form of NEWSPEAK that serves to obscure more, by its implied meaning, than it reveals, over all.

I'm suspicious of DU for these reasons:

1--Relegating 9-11 questions to the dungeon = INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE

2--And, I believe all this relegating is to please BIG BUCKS DONORS like some of the BIG WHEELS in the Democratic party.

Well, I won't donate anymore to DU until there is a clearing of the suspicious clouds. Ya see, if my suspicions are not addressed, that says to me DU is perfectly happy to IGNORE ME while they get financed by their big donors so they won't miss my modest donation anyway.

Yeah. . .what we need is the PDA to put their intelligence on yet another project. . .

progressiveunderground.com!

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[Zhade]

58. It doesn't.

Traditionally liberal values are lambasted by self-confessed conservatives, who this board was NOT created for, yet those members are welcomed here and never reminded by the mods that this is a LIBERAL board.

DU is not at all the cutting edge it once was, or still thinks of itself as being.

[stillcool]

59. I liken DU to a microcosm..

that reflects the widening chasm between the spectacle of public discourse and exploding heads bumping into reality. There are times when I can not tolerate the substance, and then there are times I revel in it. As my perception of the world changes, so does my interpretation of relevance.

[Blue_Tires]

60. k+r

[Jcrowley]

63. Brilliant

Beyond what you said as relates to the board is also quite a metaphor.

Required reading.

K&R

[karlrschneider]

64. I have no idea what you said, but I love the way you said it.

:D

But what the hell...in any population of "100,000" (or whatever's left over after subtracting tombstones and melted-aways) there's going to be a few thousand nutballs. Most of us have one or two in our own families.
The only real gripe I have with DU is that there are too many forums...do we really need about half of them?...and
to what purpose? But that ain't my call...I didn't start it, I don't run it, all I do is send in a modest contribution from
time to time.

[alittlelark]

67. ...sigh.....

[Bluebear]

68. Your profile goes back to the early part of autumn, 2004.

I have no idea who you are, so I can't gauge your many paragraphs in comparison from 2004 to 2007.

[Moderator]

69. Locking

If you have any questions or concerns about how Democratic Underground is operated, please do not hesitate to contact the administrators.