This blog is dedicated to the memory of David Weintraub, who took on insidious astroturfers and won.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

American Communism and Socialism at the Movies

this image and the other one below were found
through Karen Morley, Communism and Our Daily
by Anna

Despite Karen Morley claiming otherwise, she was a beautiful woman. What she wanted to be known for was not looks or glamour but her acting talent. She was certainly a major actress of the thirties. She had great parts in movies such as Scarface, Mata Hari, Our Daily Bread, Dinner at Eight, and many other quality films.

I first became aware of her watching a movie called The Healer. It told the story of a doctor played by the underrated Ralph Bellamy. The doctor was being pulled between the forces of high society offering avenues to so-called success versus being a regular guy doctor for regular people. Though this flick is not highly rated at, I thought it was pretty good. It can seen here. I've said this before. If you find a good movie at youtube, you need to watch it sooner rather than later. While some good films are in the public domain, many such as Sunset Boulevard are not. That one, for example, is not likely to survive for long, no matter how creative the uploaders are in coding the movie title.

One regret I had with a previous entry including screenshots of blacklisted actors and actresses was that I didn't include Karen Morley. A look at her imdb profile shows that she was perhaps hurt by the blacklist as badly as anyone. Dalton Trumbo was able to get around it a bit by using pseudonyms for his written work. An actress like Morley had no ability to do that. Maybe she could have gotten plastic surgery, but with a mug like hers, that would have been criminal.

Some have mistakenly argued that Our Daily Bread was not a promotion of socialist values. Of course it was. While it wasn't promoting any push for a political revolution, it did advocate people pulling together and working for the common good. In the movie, folks hit hard by the Depression joined forces as a farming community to produce their own food and society. It had nothing to do with looking for handouts. If anything, it's been the conglomerates who've been milking the capitalistic system. A phrase was even coined for this. It's called corporate welfare.

Our Daily Bread for at least now is available for viewing through youtube.

Salt of the Earth

This movie was put together by people who had been blacklisted. It's director, Herbert Biberman, was one of the Hollywood Ten. Only two of the actors were well-known. Will Geer played the evil sheriff. If that name sounds familiar, it's probably because he played Grandpa Walton. Like Karen Morley, he too had been blacklisted for having progressive values. The other semi-famous person in Salt of the Earth was Rosaura Revueltas, a well-known actress from Mexico. The beauty of this movie was not only did it cover discrimination and class issues, it also brought a message of anti-sexism. This movie appears to be in the public domain. Here it is.

I'll finish this entry with two quotes.
Karen Morley: Nobody could imagine just how terrible McCarthyism would be. So many careers went down the toilet.

Will Geer: I'm a lifelong agitator, a radical. A rebel is just against things for rebellion's sake. By radical, I mean someone who goes to the roots.


Shalom Patrick Hamou said...

Credit is Like Nostalgia:

It is prone to lead to procrastination and prevent us to go forward!

Our economy is slowly dying, your job, lifestyle are dominated by anxiety.

No one is proposing a solution because no one has the slightest idea of why it is happening and many have vested interest in the present system.

However an objective observation of the phenomenon can help us understand it and provide us with an innovative solution.

Of course we can't solve the problem with the tools that brought us there in the first place and we need a new ideology.

- Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

- Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to -- to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact.

- You found a flaw in the reality...(!!!???)

- Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

- In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?


In order to alleviate those economic woes wee need to create, as fast as possible, a new credit free currency that will solve the credit crunch and bring incremental jobs, consumption and investments to the present system.

An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market, Post Crash Economy

Tract on Monetary Reform

It is urgent if we want to limit social, political and military chaos.


Is the fulfilment of these ideas a visionary hope? Have they insufficient roots in the motives which govern the evolution of political society? Are the interests which they will thwart stronger and more obvious than those which they will serve?

I do not attempt an answer in this place. It would need a volume of a different character from this one to indicate even in outline the practical measures in which they might be gradually clothed. But if the ideas are correct — an hypothesis on which the author himself must necessarily base what he writes — it would be a mistake, I predict, to dispute their potency over a period of time. At the present moment people are unusually expectant of a more fundamental diagnosis; more particularly ready to receive it; eager to try it out, if it should be even plausible.

But apart from this contemporary mood, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.

Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.


Credit Free Economy
More Jobs, No Debt, No Fear.
Prosperous, Fair and Stable.

socrates said...

The dude who posted above is some crazy spammer. I can't tell if he's trying to rake in money through fraud or start a cult.

He claims to be posting out of the Office of the Chairman of the Security Board.

On another link, he added that the Security Board is part of the Department of Holy Land Security.

Fricken sassafrassa, why I ought ta.... I wish I could put his links in code, just in case someone clicks on them out of habit.

I'm disappointed. I thought maybe we had a new, real person making a contribution. If anyone understands what this hombre is truly up to, please fill us in.

socrates said...

I just watched two more good movies which could have been highlighted by this entry. Force of Evil is a good one. It's very anti-capitalism. I then watched The Devil and Miss Jones, another one I'll highly recommend for a people power kind of movie.

If I was paid to blog, one idea would be to compile a top 100 list for these kinds of movies. Another one from the top of my noggin is The Sweet Smell of Success.

Force of Evil is a must see. It starred John Garfield, who it turns out was another person targeted by the McCarthy rubbish. Also from the top of my head I remember reading a Morley quote saying how badly Robert Montgomery and Elia Kazan were on the wrong side of this topic. Karen said that if those hurt by Kazan forgive him, so will she but not a moment before.

I have one last babble to include in this update. If one looks at the groovy flicks Hollywood used to put out, from 1930-34 before the Hays Code kicked in and afterward when creative progressives in the entertainment business found ways to speak truth to greed, the rest of the world and us Yanks too would see we were pretty good apples back in the day. There's always hope. Stereotypes are just that. We may all look like a bunch of ugly Americans at the moment, but quite a lot of us are in tune with how things ought to be.

socrates said...

Oops on my last post. I meant Robert Taylor not Robert Montgomery being a rat, although I remember reading Montgomery also leaned right.

It's late, so my mind is a bit groggy. But I wanted to point out this guy Polonsky. He directed Force of Evil. Here's an interesting, related article.

Anonymous said...

I know this is off-topic but I thought you might get a kick out of this:

Lorraine Berry is a charter member of the cult of the Medicated Loony Women.

I'm sorry to stand before God and confess to his flock that she is someone I've made fun of in the recent past, and unfortunately, as usual, my aim was true.

Read the threads following the tragic romance. At first, they are sympathetic but increasingly the mood turns suspicious and skeptical, based mostly on Lorraine's trademark harlequin treatment of what should be a very personal, tragic story. Then someone does research on her story from Lorriane's other blogs and the real thread merriment begins!

Some guy named "Cary Tennis" who is sort of the bullshit crank/Dear Prudence of Salon comes into vouch for Lorraine's veracity (if not her writing ability, which is always over wrought to the point of RIOTOUS! in any context) because he knows her and they are, of course, friends. Finally the Lifestyle editor comes in and explains that it was she who deleted comments made by "trolls."

One of the deleted trolls then makes the most excellent comeback that she was simply questioning the believability as well as the narcissism and bad taste of the writer, and was also trolled on by many others, called a psycopath and told off vulgarly in the process, yet the editor didn't delete those "trolls" because she was in tacit agreement with them.

Great stuff. Lorraine could probably profit from some of that good old Socrates research and exposure....

socrates said...

I thank you for this. Great stuff. Or as they used to say back in the day, "That's the stuff!"

I'm checking out the comments now.

Before truly understanding what you were on about, I got a bad feeling about this Lorraine person. I read the article, and certain things didn't sit right. In her mini-bio, it says she writes fiction and teaches creative writing. She also prominently links to MLW.

I think there are a lot of self-serving bloggers who have no awareness that we can tell they're cheaper than a pair of socks from K-Mart. A lot of people confuse luck for skill. Lorraine and MSOC are two peads in a pod this way.

I was skimming through some Lorraine older posts from Salon. I couldn't find the specific one you mentioned to do with abortion and health care reform. I did see one where she slammed a TeaNut for mentioning Stephen Biko. It was an oh how dare you moment.

These are the fakelefties I do not like.

Maybe I'll try to post on your new MLW thread. I'm not sure what it is I ever wrote that gave MSOC the rationale to ban me forever. Perhaps it was becuase I stalked.... her posts! I found she wrote at Huffington her support for not taxing her [Angry Rich] Fox News friends.

MSOC was a one-hit wonder who could have been a contender if she wasn't such a poor man's Lorraine Berry. On the Flip side, you have that Field Negro dude who gets tons of feedback on his blog. He used to post at MLW. The only black bloggers MSOC could hold onto were the House Negroes.

I've found some great old movies. I dread giving the links, because maybe I'll cause them to be deleted. I watched The Champ. The original, precode version with Wallace Berry and I think the kid's name was Jackie Cooper. Anyway, er trying to stop the rambling, one of the more important cast members was a black friend of Cooper's. He was a normal kid with no stereotypes.

I'm ending up stream of consciousness here. I admit it. I'm trying to get at the root of the fake lefty.

If you can find some links, such as the original Berry essay on abortion and perhaps also the MLW links where you went at it with the Medicated Looney Women, I'd appreciate it. Maybe I could do a Socrates® schtick on her.

But first, I'll read through those comments. This is a good find.

On a side note, I think you're way better off posting at MLW than FSZ. FSZ is done. It's over. Those people are nasty. At least at MLW, those people still care how the outside world views them. They still have a smidgen of self-control. The people at MLW will ignore your entries. You'll need to get into the trenches with their comments and threads. Unless by chance I will be allowed to post there again, and then we could see what develops on our own turf within their dive blog. Trust me that you shouldn't post at FSZ. Those are not good people. MattyJack is insane and sadistic.

socrates said...

damn fricken typos. Your schtick of misspelling lets you get away with mistakes like that.It's Wallace Beery not Berry. Man, I finally watched Dinner at Eight. Pure brilliance. Better than Sunset Boulevard for explaining the awkward and exploitative transition from silents to talkies. I also saw a great flick called A Free Soul with Norma Shearer, Lionel Barrymore, and Gable. I was impressed with Gable in that one, unlike my overall opinion of his skills. He scared the frick out of me. He was as terrifying and probably more convincing than Muni in Scarface.

I mention Shearer, because she had more authenticity in her modern woman portrayal in the early thirties than Lorraine or Mary Scotty have now in any part of their whole bodies. I even just noticed she was cross-eyed. She was so cool, and it's our loss she retired so young from movies. I also found Blonde Crazy with Cagney and Blondell. Cagney was soooo funny. The chemistry between him and Blondell was electric.

Movies are now overrated. Back in the day, they were really making a difference. I now see why the ptb's got their knickers bunched up and brought in the censorship hammer. The worst part of this all was that many precode flicks were butchered when they were reissued, and a lot of the originals have been lost forever. One movie called Convention City no longer exists in any form. Anyway, I'm off to find Gary Tennis, who for some odd reason is bringing to mind the name Cary Grant.

Oh yeah, Karen Morley was wicked awesome as Poppy in Scarface. Too bad she, Grandpa Walton, and many more were blacklisted. I truly believe in my humblest of opinions that Hollywood censorship was one of the worst things that ever happened. I think it stifled our spiritual development. It's part and parcel of an overall legitimation crisis. We are supposed to have all these first amendment rights, and right there in the thick of the Twentieth Century, America was full of shitola.

The house troll made a couple posts here I didn't allow. One was zzzzz. The other was Yaaaawwwnnn. This entry would have been important, even for just embedding Salt of the Earth. That's true hidden lefty ideals getting it's salute fron a nobody like myself. I admit I'm not all that. I might just be a bag of chips. And one more thing. I've never read anyone anywhere who uses the word "I" as much as Lorraine Berry. Who the hell is she, and why should we care? Same with MSOC of MLW.

socrates said...

Yikes, I'm not proofreading this posts, and you're getting virtual roughdrafts. I wanted to say Norma Shearer had more sincerity in her pinkie portaying the modern woman than those other women have in their whole hands.

I've always liked that analogy. I'm not sure where it first got said. The earliest I heard it was from John McEnroe describing himself in comparison to Ivan Lendl. And that gets me thinking of something else. This isn't my original idea, and I forget where I read it. But did John McEnroe ever point out a mistake made by a tennis ref which went in his favour when it shouldn't have? Since he probably didn't, that means he was in his own way a fake.

There's something to being a devil's advocate. There's something beautiful in folks being self-effacing at times, trying to get to the roots of truth. even if it doesn't help their own egotistical side. This is what's wrong with Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and the censors at places like Huffington and apparently at Salon. They can't get away with it for very long. The Hollywood Code didn't even succeed. Years later the truth has emerged about the hypocrisy which destroyed movies. I do realise I sound like a hypocrite, because I censor the two house trolls. But I'm small potatoes.

I do consider you different from them. I do enjoy your blogging, except when it gets too personal. I'm not saying kiss my ass, or I'll censor you. I'm not saying walk on eggshells. I'm just tired of getting shit on over the years. Here I am using the word "I" every sentence. Triple yikes.

I just want to be able to blog in peace. That's why I don't mind being on a small potato stage. The big potato stage is rigged. Now all this talk of potatoes is making me hungry.

socrates said...

Ha, I'm on page two, and someone found her original entry on Yves written years earlier.

November 11, 2006

The story's changed a bit. Surprisingly or perhaps not, her original is filled with soft porn.

Someone posted that Salon might want to fact check their bloggers. Precisely. Huffington is stuck with promoting Brad Friedman of BradBlog. Salon is also not looking so kosher posting fiction as non-fiction.

Yes, there appears to be a fake lefty story with this one. I'm on page three, and already there is talk of censorship going on. I truly thank you for this, donkeytale.

socrates said...

Here's a post from page three. It seems to get to the heart of what makes a fake lefty seem fake. This could easily have been a post written in response to a Maryscott O'Connor entry. It's how I reacted to Berry's piece on the TeaNut talking about Biko.

something not quite right...

about this story. It's terribly sad, and one is always reminded in life (if they pay attention) that death is always near. But there's something facile about this story. I felt uncomfortable, because it seems to be entirely about the writer. Let's see -- how can we make this about ME? That's what feels so wrong about it.

The author apparently didn't know much about him, even though they talked and communicated frequently before they met. So what else about him? There's nothing there, and how is that a tribute to *anyone* someone thinks they love? The sadness to me comes from the basic anonymity of the man who died. Therefore, this is a tribute not to the man, but a self-absorbed writer.

socrates said...

Cary Tennis, wow, he shows up to vouch for Lorraine. That reminds me of Larisa Alexandrovna vouching for Brett Kimberlin.

I've explained before how I ended up at Dave from Queens and FSZ. My schtick at the time was exposing Larisa for making up crap with the Michael Connell hoax.

As Berry got caught in a lie about daughters versus daughter, I saw that Alexandrovna had fibbed about putting a note in the Connell's mailbox. That was only one of many things that made no sense with Alexandrovna's so-called journalism.

Then I got trolled on. People were putting my quotes into their signatures, for example, what about the mailbox.

What I don't get is how the posts complaining about censorship at Salon are still there. Perhaps there were so many, that the Salon moderator cheats decided the censorship would become even more obvious if they kept at it. I predict this Berry entry will eventually be whitewalled or conveniently given a new link so it won't be readily available. Huffington Post has lost all credibility due to their moderating cheating. Same has happened to Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and other blogs.

Heck, it was Dave Weintraub who proved how censorship works at Daily Kos. In return for his effective trollbusting, he was smeared as a troll, even by FSZ. That's how the blogosphere is set up. This is why I have given up on blogging on any stage of it except where I can do it on my own terms and avoid the cheating nature of it.

socrates said...

Ok, I've found some links to get you started with cybersleuthing this mess.

It appears that Lorraine got her start or initial push with blogging at My Left Wing.

A poster named yibadit was her sock puppet. Yibadit registered at MLW on Oct 16, 2006. She made her first post on that day, and Lorraine responded that she was her friend who finally signed up after her encouragement to do so.

Perhaps a second sock puppet named caliberal wrote on November 11, "Lorraine needs our love and support." This pertained to Yves.

Lorraine responded using the yibadit account. She explained that yibadit was her best friend, she was using her computer and username. Yeah, right!

The funny thing is that was a day after yibadit had posted an open letter to Lorraine telling her she had done all she could, that she was the "bodhisattva in this story" and "a bright spirit in the darkest of places."

There are six posts listed for yibadit. Half of them were written as Lorraine.

I don't buy it. It takes less than a minute to log out and resign in. Plus, it's not like the two usernames were mostly posting at the same time. This looks like simply a bad case of sock puppetry.

Just days later, the allegedly two separate persons had no trouble signing out with posts made within minutes of each other.

And, blessed or damned, Lorraine, you are one of the ones who, submerged as you are in a freezing swamp, keep dredging bits of treasure and laying them on the shore where the rest of us can see them, and share them, and be enriched.

That was an "interaction" from Lorraine's entry on Yves titled Shattered from November 19th, 2006. She is definitely a scary looking woman. Perhaps one can compare that entry with other ones to find discrepancies with the Yves story.

Now check this out. The yibadit account made its last post a half year later. And yet again it was Lorraine using the yibadit account.

Lorraine again

Apparently Lorraine is chummy with MSOC and was deeply involved in the farce that surrounded Beagleandtabby's suicide.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Lorraine hasn't added a new diary or comment to MLW in about a year. This is her MLW page.

In her profile she links to as her webpage. It's no longer around, though it is showing up through the wayback machine. It's a bit tricky to get to actual articles and information on what was neovox. There could definitely be a story here to figure out concerning Lorraine Berry, who she's been, and what she's up to. According to the What is Vox page, "Each month, NeoVox will explore a theme through non-fiction articles, personal essays, artwork, fiction, and poetry. These themes are broad and provocative and invite contributors to reflect on the various aspects of the topic. NeoVox would like to invite any college student to submit interpretations of each month’s theme...."

What I'd like to know in relation to her Salon blog controversy is whether Lorraine Berry is into merging fiction with non-fiction without making proper disclosures.

socrates said...

I got in a couple posts before predictably being banned from your MLW thread.

It turns out it didn't matter I was unable to counterpunch their lame support of Lorraine Berry after getting the quick banishment. They debunked themselves. CurmudgetteFace's rebuttal to my outing Berry's sock puppet was that it's not against the rules at MLW. She also showed she has no idea what a sock puppet is by claiming your Joseph KKK username is a sock puppet. Uhm no, it's called a zombie account, where someone banned is forced to come up with a new username.

What Berry did was have a fake conversation in order to prop herself up.

Mudge's other argument is that the MLW crowd vouches for Lorraine, so this story basically has no legs.

I recommended your diary. It has more comments and action than most every other one at that dive.

MSOC is whining that we should be sued for slander. She used a lot of expletives and her nasty brand of dialogue.

Curmudgie turned it all around by making you the topic, as in this is really about scum like us making the internet intolerable.

A couple others were talking about baseball. Talk about off-topic.

Someone named Puzzled doesn't understand why I went to the trouble of spending time digging up some info. She obviously didn't check out your link to Salon.

The irony is mostly with Curmudgette. She equated your post with someone elsewhere making fun of a comic who overdosed. Uhm, even if there is some truth to the Yves story, Lorraine Berry turned it around into being all about herself.

No one could deal with the actual content. It was like what Francis Holland went through. They made him the story, when the real one was what was up with Moulitsas and his ties to the CIA. There's a real story here with Berry, but according to MLW, we are the story.

socrates said...

MLW changed my username from LarsBeery to ImaSlanderousDouchebag. You'd think liberal women wouldn't be throwing the d word around as much as they do. But that's because they are of the fake left variety.

Medicated Loony Women is correct. They act very unhinged. All the time. I know I have had a series of posts under the heading of scumbag this, scumbag that, but that was all for the show. These people aren't outright nasty.

This dude Vox Humana showed up to give his typical milquetoast support for free speech. What's up with people saying they don't understand the backstory when it would take a few minutes to check out the original link?

This isn't rocket science. Some Lorraine Berry lady used to be a nobody blogger for My Left Wing. Now she is getting published by Salon. She wrote some Mickey Mouse piece in which many people have doubted it is a true story. Even if it is true, she basically propped herself up as the story instead of the actual victim.

But Vox Humana and others can't figure out the backstory. That's like someone saying they can't see what the big deal is about the Larisa Alexandrovna, Brad Friedman, Brett Kimberlin triangle. Friggen sassafrassa.

Anonymous said...

I'm not ignoring you, just terribly busy these days......haven't even looked in on the MLW thread, but thanks for the, uhhh, assistance there. Based on your description, its probably better that I stay away.

If you can get in you should invite them all over here and watch your ratings soar. Too bad you have that moderation schtick working. You could ascend the Alexa heavens.

So "we" are being accused of slander, are "we"? To quote the immortal Tonto, who is this "we" you're talking about, keemosabe?


I can't believe that I stand accused. Isn't MSOC studying for a law degree, or wtf? I guess they haven't gotten to the libel/slander/defamation definitions yet.

Then again, I remember when Francis (who actually is a legal chisel) posted his legendary 'MAMZ was working for the CIA story' on MLW he was accused of every one of those offenses multiple times by many of the same resident amateur attorneys we all know and love.

Have you ever read those Francis threads?

In my typically trollish counterintuitive way, I actually enjoyed the Yves story and have no doubt that its real. I even felt the emotions she was projecting. Lorraine's a pro. I mean, she's no Conrad, but she's a good writer.

I like Lorraine's schtick, in general. Melodrama rules! Bodice rippers rule!

The tidbits slay me. She was in tight hip huggers and thick high heels. He walked behind her up the stairs, vocally admiring her sway.

The detail about the book of poetry is pure greatness. She went back to his apt and stripped down to her cami and skivvies before crawling into bed and sniffing his pillow.

Got to give her credit for honesty. This is the type of goofy stuff everybody does after a sizzling one night stand. You want to keep that with you for as long as possible.

What if Yves had been a hetero Jeffery Dahmer?

I guess we'll never know, will we?

You think that lifestyle editor at Salon would publish my gay masterpiece?

After all, it too is a true story, down to the detail of my dad having a torrid love affair with my boyfriend's mama.

Course, I'm too shy to layer in all the sexy details. I'm not talented enough in the arts.

socrates said...

I wouldn't be surprised if MSOC banned you. I doubt it'd be a permanent ban like the one on myself, because you and her go back to the DKOS days.

She already libeled me as being a stalker. She's never heard one shouldn't throw stones out of glass houses.

She has a nice little scam set up going. She probably makes a few hundred bucks a year from her regulars, just enough to cover the soapblox fee and a bit extra for her meds. The main reason she keeps the place going is her ego.

She'd never admit that she ruined the chance to become bigger than Kos. Daily Kos has dropped down a lot of notches and is getting clobbered by Huffington Post. Though, Kos might get some kind of stipend from the DLC to go with his huge cadre of chumps including political operatives buying those lame subscriptions.

Democratic Underground has the same kind of scam.

BradBlog does it too. He writes up lame hoaxes and then asks for donations for his so-called reporting. One can only imagine how much such people rake in.

This is what MSOC wrote. There was no parent post, so it was in response to your entry. Thus it's a royal we comprised of us two.

You know, pushing slander -- (10.00 / 2)

or, in this case, libel -- is most DEFINITELY grounds for banning.

So, fuck you both. You fucking toads.

And if I were Lorraine, and I had the means, I'd sue your asses. Scumbags.

Ratings, schmatings for Alexa. They once had me way up there. There's no way to know how the thing works or if it's accurate. Same thing with the new blogspot stats. There are more page views showing up on the timeline graph than for the total number given. That means this place might have been getting some serious numbers.

I actually don't care about becoming a big time success. I did what I did when I did it yadda yadda yadda.

TLNL said something about he might be facing a serious health issue. Yikes. I hope it's nothing serious. Anyway, this will probably sound corny, but God forbid anything happens to me and I lose the ability to uhm breathe, I'll rest in peace better knowing this place is being trashed in my absence.

There were only really a few of us anyway, and unfortunately two of them are sadistic cyberstalkers. I'm not making that up. I don't throw that word around like too many do, like MSOC did.

I agree with you Lorraine's story is probably true. But the way she presented it, I'd say there was some fiction thrown in. At a minimum, she turned the whole thing into a self-serving story about herself. I'm not surprised that she was up to her neck with MSOC concerning not helping BeagleandTabby when he needed the help.

socrates said...

A similar thing happened at DKOS. Someone wrote something kind of depressing, and then all these people started stalking her, and according to them, for her own good. I'm not saying what they did with BeagleandTabby was stalking. But it was in bad taste to put his disturbing situation in the spotlight. If you're going to do something good in this world, do it for free and don't advertise it.

It does look like I nailed Lorraine using a sock puppet at MLW. If you get the time, check out the above links and chronolgy with the second username and Lorraine's.

I've never used a sock puppet, as in I've never had fake conversation with myself. Lorraine seems to have done that, and precisely for trying to make herself look good. That's a no-no. That's Jason Leopold territory.

Francis Holland never wrote libel concerning Markos. According to his own words and whatnot, it's not far-fetched to think Kos was being paid by the CIA. I don't think it was ever proven. But he definitely was kissing their asses in 2006. We're not talking about him being a Republican homophobe when he was 20. That was just a few years ago.

MSOC is on a road to nowhere. She'll be lucky to get any clients. She waited too long to study law. She's too old. She's not smart enough. You can't just show up twenty years later and study law, unless one is a genius or very bright. She isn't. Screaming internet style or whatever is up with her schtick is not substance.

Francis has a law degree and they don't. I have a master's degree. I understand academic principles. I'm not saying I'm a genius or whatever. I'm just saying that most of my blogging has had an academic flavour or whatnot. I'm not just some dumbass paint sniffer like supersoling or crazy birds like Miep, Blews, and MattyJack with his GED and undergrad crap.

So many people are on the net and they haven't a clue most of the time what they are attacking. It's like you say. It's a herd mentality. They break off into cliques and create a new herd.

I'm not rubbing my education in anyone's face to prop myself up either. I'm just trying to make a point about the internet, how it's not what you know or how it's presented. It's the same with anything. Anyone who is a non-conformist is not wanted. Those who are so-called liberals like at MLW and the other soapbloxes, they wish to be seen as the non-conformists. But around and around they go becoming what they rail against.

socrates said...

I think Salon should be embarrassed to have someone posting soft porn on their website. And one last comment. Why has Lorraine disappeared. I don't think she made one post in the comments to clear things up. No, it was Gary Tennis and Shirley PingPong running all the interference.

The fricken I vouch for them thing is so very lame. The Larisa vouching for Brett Kimberlin was the greatest one ever. Great as in stupid. At MLW they are vouching for Lorraine out of habit or because or their egos feeling good about one of their own making it to the big leagues of blogging so to speak. I pity MSOC. She's clearly unbalanced. She could have been Huffington. She could've ended up with hundreds of thousands of bloggers on her side. Now all she has is the mysterious Curmudgette who was close pals with shadowthief , some Palestinian hater named Karmafish, and a right wing Fox News producer. The rest of them I can't even tell who they are. There's no there there. We may be a bit off-putting at times, but at least we are distinct voices who still try our best most of the time. There's just nowhere to go on the internet. Nowhere. It's like when the Hays Code kicked in for movies in 1934. For the most part America's growth has been severely retarded. Other countries like in Europe, at least they went through some bad shit and had to come to terms with it. There's something very unhealthy about America, and it was put on display yet again at MLW. I actually think MSOC dhould give up the meds and hit the sauce. One can only imagine what drugs she's taking. If it's ritalin, that could explain why she from time to time exhibits signs of mental breakdown.

Once a KosKop always a KosKop.

socrates said...

Damn, I'm reading what I wrote and seeing I should have proofread it. Though there's a bit of freedom in just writing and hitting the post button. Like I meant to say I couldn't rest in peace if this place was getting trashed because moderation was off. There's a lot of good stuff in this place, shite that transcends any of us. And with google, we can probably assume this will survive most other internet formats.

Anonymous said...

Whats so funny is that MSOC doesnt even begin to get it. She is the purest of pure reactionaries.

This is a meta tale about self indulgence, literary connections, exploitation, blogging, life, death and cheap sex overly romanticized in the era of the infoboobtubes.

Truly, its the essence of good blogging. That Lorraine comes off poorly in so many people's eyes seems to be MSOC's issue. But her vision is too narrow to comprehend the wider view necessary to grasp the importance of the reaction in the threads. And we have Lorraine to thank for this.

I went back into the end of thread, its now a few days later and people are putting the initial reactions into a proper perspective. Such as this one:

"This Thread is More Interesting Than The Tale.

The short version: no one who puts stuff online, comments or essays, has the right to only the result they want. Essays get negative feedback, comments get deleted.

It is telling, however, if a site is quick to delete selected negative responses to an author with connections, while the site as a whole response slowly or not at all to spam comments and comments which are far worse than the deleted ones. Acting overly protective of one essay with dubious value seems like poor editorial policy overall.

The long version:

It is possible for a story to be true and tragic and people still find it poorly written and self indulgent, or violating the privacy of others. "Creative" non-fiction can be true but written in a false way, either emotionally or in fudged details. There are ways to anticipate and deal with these issues, including editing, tone and caveats about changed names, events, etc.

Posting on the world wide web and inviting comments is a choice - one taken knowing a negative response is possible. No one has to share their lives in public. Posting negative comments on a private a site is a choice, not a right. If comments are deleted, or one is called a troll, it's not censorship, just a site being run a certain way.

Writing about something deeply personal and sad does not exempt one from negative feedback - warrented and otherwise. The reading public is not obligated to become an uncritical support group because something bad happened. It is not proof of character to dislike something, though saying so in a provocative way might provoke a reaction.

When one is writing about sex and death of a near stranger and possibly using their real name, people who don't like the work are more likely to react strongly. It doesn't mean the author is to blame if they act like trolls, but trolling can still be an accurate guide to the weakness in the piece.

Overall, however, liking or despising an essay is rarely proof of a person's entire moral worth, not even if they use dramatic or stupid language. Although it's far more exciting to argue from a dramatic standpoint. All in all, it's just online comments - which makes it even weirder anyone would bother to delete some.

Finally, to repeat, it undermines a sites credibility when comments are edited in an inconsistent (and even weird) way, especially if it seems to reflect random whims of certain staffers while obvious problems - such as spam - are poorly managed. Especially if it seems like the site is starting to tell those who question the naval gazing melodrama to shut up".


Someone else suggested retitling the story "His Death and My Underwear."


That pretty much sums it up in exactly five words.

socrates said...

I couldn't agree more with your last post. You're correct that, "MSOC doesnt even begin to get it."

She just added in response to Vox Humana, "Claiming she's posting fiction as fact... That's pretty fucking libelous, if you ask me."

But if you look at what we wrote, neither of us claimed fiction was presented as fact. I specifically couched my words to ask whether this had been done. Big difference.

Perhaps the more interesting question is whether Lorraine Berry blogged in a self-serving manner. MSOC's ego is too big to have noticed that part of the query.

I think you should go back to that thread. I think you should be on your best behaviour. It's tough to hold back and avoid flame fests. But it can be done.

I thank MSOC and her sycophants for being yet another example of how big blogs suppress free speech when tough questions are posed concerning their bloggers.

Democratic Underground has protected Larisa Alexandrovna, BradBlog, and Brett Kimberlin. Daily Kos and My Left Wing have protected Moulitsas. Now MSOC is protecting Lorraine Berry. Salon is protecting Berry. MattyJack protected himself by banning me and deleting posts that exposed himself as a bald-faced liar concerning Dave Weintraub.

Huffington Post does the same thing.

This is the same thing the US government did to Hollywood starting in the mid-30's and escalating with the Red Scare period in the 50's.

When movies finally got sound, it became an incredible vehicle for zeitgeist making. I've got an idea for a new entry and will touch on these ideas more in-depth there.

If MSOC truly wants to become an attorney, she's going to have to ditch her bad habit of thinking screaming points is the same as proving points.

She definitively is saying we claimed Berry presented fiction as non-fiction. Such a libel case would be laughed out of court with the plaintiffs being forced to pay the other side's legal bills.