I forgot to do an open thread earlier this week, and I'll be at the jail most of the day, so here's a place for you to weigh in.

Please take my blog reader survey!

It's that time of year again for blog readers to take the Blogads reader survey. It's not short, but it really helps us with demographics. It's about ten minutes, but you can stop whenever you've had enough.

Each blog has a unique survey link. Help us learn who TalkLeft's audience is.

Thanks!

Remember this story?

Sign on to www.gwbush.com and an altered, obviously fake image appears of a gleeful-looking Texas Gov. George W. Bush with a straw up his nose, inhaling white lines. Www.gwbush.com is not, needless to say, the official Bush campaign Web site (which is www.georgewbush.com).

And that's exactly the point, says the site's creator, Zack Exley, a 29-year-old computer programmer from Boston. Www.gwbush.com is so outlandish that anyone would spot it as a parody site, he says. . . . Bush's lawyers had warned Exley that he faced a lawsuit for his Web site's use of photos lifted from the copyrighted official Bush campaign site.

. . . Exley said Bush's intent is to intimidate and shut him down--a charge the Bush campaign denies. And Internet enthusiasts and free-speech advocates are closely monitoring the case because of its First Amendment implications.

In somewhat different circumstances, Barack Obama has, apparently, found control by someone not himself of the much renowned MySpace site, the one with the 160,000 "friends of Obama," objectionable. But unlike in the Bush situation, there is no question of cybersquatting, MySpace invoked its user agreement with Joe Anthony, the creator of the MySpace profile, and at the request of Obama, took the profile url away from Anthony and granted to it Obama.

First lesson of this episode? Don't build MySpace profiles of celebrities. MySpace will take them away from you at the request of said celebrities.

More lessons on the flip.

The varied reactions to Jon Chait's Netroots piece brings to mind "Rashomon." My initial reaction is here. Other reactions I would group as reacting to Chait's take on the political activism component, see Bowers, the Right/Left blogwars component, Atrios, the New Left purity reaction, see Booman, and the semi-pundit reactions, featured here by TNR, of Matt Yglesias and Eric Alterman.

Of the folks who were or might be defined as Netroots, Bowers for instance, I think he took personal affront to the idea that he was a propagandist and not someone who is more married to the truth than to his desired political outcome. I understand his reaction but he doth protest too much. There can be no doubt that the Netroots, Bowers, included, pay attention to the stories that are favorable for his desired outcomes while overlooking those that are not. We ALL do that. Certainly propagandist is not right, but the idea that he is not engaged in at the least, advocacy journalism that is not truly interested in telling the whole objective story, is rather silly. Chris admits as much in his wrapup sentence on the subject:

Chait's standard for what counts as propaganda is absurdly broad. Basically, he seems to imply that anyone who is interested in making any impact on politics is engaging in propaganda, because that person is no longer engaging in a purely disinterested pursuit of ideas.

Correct.

Jon Chait attempts an explanation of the Netroots for perplexed The New Republic readers. It is a quite good piece and Chait has some interesting things to say, but he gets a lot wrong. To me, this is his biggest mistake:

All the lessons the netroots have gleaned about U.S. politics were on display in this noxious denouement [the 2000 Post-Eloection Fight], and those lessons have been reinforced time and again throughout the Bush presidency. The Democratic leadership and the liberal intelligentsia seemed pathetic and exhausted, wedded to musty ideals of bipartisanship and decorousness. Meanwhile, what the netroots saw in the Republican Party, they largely admired. They saw a genuine mass movement built up over several decades. They saw a powerful message machine. And they saw a political elite bound together with ironclad party discipline.

It is not admiration that the Netroots expresses here. It is dealing with the reality of the situation. Chait mistakes understanding your political adversary, what you are up against, with admiration.

No one wants the nation so divided politically. Everyone wishes we could all be reasonable. But only a fool acts as if the world is how he wishes it to be. I have written about this in the past:

Episode 81 is tonight: "Chasing It."

This week, Tony hits an unlucky stretch and AJ makes a life-changing decision. Meanwhile, Vito's widow Marie turns to Tony for help with her troubled son.

Is AJ going to decide to join the mob?

I have been hard on the Left Blogs/so called "Netroots" lately on Iraq. My main reason is they have been wrong about it. But I have also been hard on them because it seemed to me they were abdicating a critical role the Left Blogs play in the political debate. I thnk Atrios explains that role nicely:

Overall what blogs have been able to do is create an unfolding political narrative which has been largely absent elsewhere. Sometimes it's about emphasizing different things, sometimes it's about combating DC conventional wisdom, sometimes it's about highlighting things which are being ignored. But taken all together it's about telling the story of politics in a different way.

When the Left blogs/Netroots decided to cheerlead the House Supplemental, playing the "pragmatic" insider, they ceded their real power in the debate. Move On and others simply failed to understand what their power is. It is not in settling for inadequate proposals and cheerleading inevitable compromises. It is describing the progressive postion and providing a narrative that keeps the Beltway, Media and politicians honest.

The Left Blogs/Netroots forgets this at its peril. If it goes down that road, and comes to resemble the Right blog relationship with the GOP in its relationship with the Democratic Party, it will be considerably weakened as a force in the political debate.

I've got court all afternoon so feel free to take over and direct the conversation.

Michelle Malkin is really funny. Via atrios, tbogg delivers the punchline:

Michelle Malkin, has a bitchin' idea on how to show those defeatosurrenderquitterocrats a thing or two about stick-to-it-tiveness; Send 'em a white feather:

The White Feather has been a symbol for cowardice. I suggest that white feathers be sent to the leaders of the Senate and House for the cowardly vote that abandons our soldiers around the world. . . .Wha? Oh. Michelle has an update: Update: Several readers note that legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock wore a white feather in his hat band. . . .

Maybe not. But if it is a go, how about sending them to Bush and Romney:

[Romney said] "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." [Bush said about the war on terror]"I don't think you can win it."

Let Bush and Romney be as perplexed as Congressional Dems Michelle. I guess white flags are too expensive for this "gesture."

[Note: I will periodically bump this to the top the next day or so, so check below for newer posts on our regular topics.]

It's been three months since I've asked readers to donate to TalkLeft. It's time to make some rain.

Site expenses and my time commitment are up, and any help you can give, even $5 or $10 would be greatly appreciated.

TalkLeft is almost 5 years old and in that time we've had almost 18 million visitors and more than 33 million page views. There's also been many improvements to the site over the years.

If you appreciate the work we're doing, I'd love your support.

While contributions from everyone who appreciates TalkLeft are welcome, I'm hoping that particularly you lurkers out there who read TalkLeft almost every day but don't comment or usually contribute, will chip in.

If you'd rather donate anonymously, please use Amazon here.

As always, thanks in advance. Your generosity is really appreciated. I hope to keep TalkLeft thriving for a long time to come.

I see London, I see France...

Sen. Gary Siplin of Orlando, a Florida lawmaker has introduced a bill to suspend students if you can see their underwear.

It's called the "Pull Up Your Britches" bill. Students in violation would face a ten day suspension.

The bill is under debate by the Education Appropriations Committee. As to Sen. Siplin,

The senator was convicted of grand theft for paying his office staff with state money while he worked on his re-election campaign. The senate has suspended action to remove Siplin from office pending his appeal.

[Hat tip The Agitator]

There's a freezing rain storm here today and very gray skies. It's the kind where you can hear the wind from inside and watch the rain pound the windows and you just know you aren't going outside unless you have to.

I'm going to spend it reading discovery, listening to wiretaps and organizing my files.

I'll leave the blogging to you.