Figure, any of the businesses that I worked at over the years would have had a significantly different response to the TPM Cafe software fiasco than Josh's glowing blog post 4 weeks after the conversion. Not only would any company for which I've worked sued the pants off the third-party software vendor, the people responsible for the approval, testing, and implementation of the software change would have been canned. Heckuva job, Brownie!

Archives are on their way over, Chuck. In the next few days you should be able to find all of your own old posts by hitting "your blog" at the top, and your most recent 10 comments are on your profile.
Posted by Andrew Golis
February 2, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink

It [old reader blogs] is not lost, it will be loaded onto the site once the new server is up. Early next week.
Posted by Andrew Golis
February 22, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink

1. Our tech folk forgot to import reader blogs onto the new server (infuriating, I know).  Just after we were done our serving company took the servers offline and shipped them to a different location.  They won't be back up until the end of next week, at which point our tech folks will go get the archives.  We know how essential this is and how messed up it is that it all got lost in the meantime.
An e-mail from Andrew Golis dated March 13, 2008

Speaking of archives, the last problem is that the reader blog archives from the old Cafe have not been migrated into the new system. Initially, we thought the database had just been corrupted and could be fixed fairly simply, but quickly we figured out that they just had not been migrated onto the new servers at all. And, just our luck these days, when we went back to our old server partners to go get the archives they told us that they'd literally just put them on a truck to be moved across the country (seriously, you can't make this stuff up). They told us today that it has finally arrived and will be up to start the transfer next Tuesday. So hopefully that will be completed by the end of the week next week.
By Andrew Golis - March 19, 2008, 5:52PM

Cloudy, we apologize for the hassle. it was not intentionally, and the data is not gone. We're working now on re-importing posts that were not successfully imported at launch and we anticipate having all of it brought over in the next two or three weeks.
Posted by Josh Marshall
April 5, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink

TPM Media is in the business of online journalism. And that type of business requires a trust by the audience, the ability to disengage from the story and look at the facts, the ability to get to the truth of a matter.

Why should I trust what TPM has to report, if they cannot be upfront with their audience about technical issues that specifically affects that audience? Why should I trust that TPM vets their sources, if they cannot vet their own software provider? Why should I trust TPM's spirited reporting of missing DOJ emails, when TPM failed to back up their own harddrives?

We're not just the bloggers on this site. We're also part of the audience that increases the counter hits, that raise the Google search results, that click on the ads. To TPM management, this migration to Moveable Type 4 may seem like a pain in butt to its users. But, to this reader, the continuing problems of the migration, and the lack of follow-through on the multiple promises to repopulate our older blog posts, brings up questions about TPM's business chops.

Ok, I was a little hesitant to post this myself, since it's an obvious conflict of interest. At the same time, I'm seeing the frustration of various established users of TPM Cafe.

The scope, and it seems intent, of the TPM Cafe appears to be to generate as many user posts as possible in as simple a method as possible. And that's fine, I certainly understand the appeal to drive-thru clicks and a well branded site.

And please, spare me with the "the old Cafe was too difficult for users to use." If that were the case, no one would have bothered posting. Not the users, not the Book Club folks, not the Table For One Folks, etc. Users could use the site, it just didn't fit with the lowest common denominator blogger that seems to make up the "blogghorea" needed for higher traffic stats.

Like I said, I totally understand all this, and I'm not here to judge. It's a business, and I'm probably the most pro-business user on the site.

The problem for the established users is that we're used to meta-discussions on the topics that are posted. Rarely did one see a drive-by posting found on the main TPM site, or the breaking-at-the-moment postings found at EC and MR. Posts at the Cafe were more nuanced, more discussion-friendly.

Someone did a quick analysis of the posts on here for last week, and it seemed (recalling from memory) that the average comment per blog post is 3. Three comments, with nary a threaded reply. That's not discussion.

This isn't a knock to the new users. Welcome, I say! I've actually enjoyed some of the writing from some of the new members. But, I don't think I'll be participating in conversations (what little there are) for some time. And I'm not talking about the technical problems that have plagued the site since the switch-over. The atmosphere and attitude now seems to fit more with EC and MR... post the most up-to-date blog post, then move on.

So, the established users got riled. Wouldn't you be, if your favorite site to discuss just about any topic - and not just politics or the election - was taken over by the blog zombies? Some have left, some have decided to wait it out, some are still actively posting. It's not that we blame Josh, or the developers, or the new bloggers. We're just mourning the loss of a cherished site and resource.

To that end, I have created a (temporary? permanent? we haven't decided) a refuge for those TPM Cafe'ers who enjoyed the more threaded discussion, the more nuance and meta discussions. This isn't to compete with TPM Cafe, or to take users away. It's to fill a need that was created by the change-over. Nothing more.

If you're interested in re-creating a community based on respect for differing views, emotional maturity in posting / commenting, and nuanced discussions, then please feel free to visit FORUM: Lucidity at http://forum.projectlucidity.com.

Some of your favorite TPM Cafe bloggers are already there.

<p>MSNBC correspondent David Shuster asked yesterday, &quot;Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?&quot;</p>
<p>This is offensive in so many ways, it's unbelievable. It continues the constant stream of vicious, demeaning, degrading, and crude anti-Hillary and anti-woman rhetoric coming out of the media.</p>
<p>Apparently &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster <strong><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/08/msnbcs_shuster_to_offer_onair_1.html">is going to apologize</a></strong> on the air at 6:00 PM EST.</p>
<p>I have to wonder: will &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster really apologize?</p>
<p>Here's what he had to say <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/msnbc-reporter-begrudging_n_85706.html">earlier today</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative about the actions of Chelsea Clinton making these phone calls, to the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative, I apologize for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at what he says there. He apologizes if people <strong>feel</strong> that he was being perjorative. He doesn't apologize for actually <strong>being</strong> perjorative. In other words, he's not sorry for what he's done, he's sorry that people feel bad about what he's done. He's not sorry for what he's said, he's sorry for getting in trouble about it.</p>
<p>Well, &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster, to the extent that you feel that you are being attacked about your idiotic, misogynistic comment, then I'm sorry for that.</p>
<p>Wait a minute, no, I'm not.</p>

TPM Café allows a very eclectic mix of writers and bloggers. We have the “front pagers,” those established writers who bring solid writing to the table, have the experience and expertise to put weight behind their arguments, and generate good discussions. Then we have the “reader bloggers,” those who have their own experience and expertise, but don’t have the name recognition or clout as the “front pagers.” These bloggers bring in a wide range of topics; with some good writing and some bad. You’re general proletariat of the Café. Then you have the “back-benchers,” those readers who generally comment often, and are on the site for the social aspect.

All three are really required to make TPM Café a great site. But, we’ve just gone through a major transformation. There are some great features planned for the site, including reader blogs on the front page, rotating recommended blogs, and integrated user profiles across the TPM Empire.

There are also some features that are either lacking, or broken. Tracking new comments are lost, there are some glitches with the Reply link, the Recommend This link doesn’t work, and the time-frame to update posts and comments are a little long. Most of these can be fixed, though. And when they are, I think people will be greatly pleased with the new site, and will forget about plans to leave.

My feelings of Barack Obama mirror my feelings of TPM Café. His message of hope and change definitely resonates with a significant portion of the American populace. He seems to transcend Democrats and Independents, red states and blue states. African-Americans are obviously pulled towards him, as he provides the best chance so far to break the political racial ceiling. And I offer a heartfelt congratulation to his recent Super Tuesday successes.

Here’s where I throw in the “but.”

But, I can’t offer my 100% support to him yet. There are a few things I would like to see him tweak first. He has a great interface, but his applications don’t necessarily match my presidential wants and needs. Here are a couple of upgrades that I would suggest:

Gay Marriage – Why should we support a “separate but equal” policy in the Democratic party? Why was Dennis Kucinich the only Democratic candidate (that I could see) who supported same-sex marriage? I understand there is a religious component to the argument, but we’re supposed to be moving away from religion in politics, especially after the Bush years. If you are unwilling to give same-sex couples the same equal treatment (including terminology) then I would suggest repealing tax benefits for married couples. Something, anything to give same-sex couples the same benefits, yet remove the “separate but equal” stigma.

The Environment – I understand that Barack supports a cap-and-trade system. So do I… when it has teeth. Europe’s system is in a shambles, and is nearly useless. Yes, make pollution more expensive, make gasoline more expensive (to meet with similar costs in Europe, for example). The problem is, we need more than that. These measures are all reactionary, and incur negative costs to companies. So, of course big business is going to be against them. Instead, reach into your message of hope and change, and offer something positive regarding the environment and energy. Sometimes he mentions this, but I don't think he voices it loudly enough. Push for more alternative fuel development, make it into a positive business model that will help grow the economy, not restrict business.

Education – Repeal “No Child Left Behind.” Don’t try to fix it, don’t try to amend it; just trash it. It doesn’t work, and it’s fundamentally flawed. We need a fundamental shift in the type of teaching we have in school. The current system is based on scanned tests and rankings. Is it any wonder that the quality of our schools continue to deteriorate? Teachers are teaching only to the tests, and not how the children learn best. There should be a higher focus on emergence and interactive learning – basically, the NAEYC model. State that you will focus on early childhood development, and actually provide funding.

There are some other, minor technical glitches that I would like to see changed in your campaign style and in your supporters’ dialog, but those are minor to me compared to the few I listed above. Change, or expand, your policy position on those, and I’ll be happy to sign off my user acceptance, and implement my vote in your favor.  I also think you’ll find an expanded user-base to include the front pagers, reader bloggers, and back-benchers of the American citizenry.

Just for a little break in the Super Tuesday madness...

Anyone have thoughts on potential running mates should Hillary get the nomination come the convention? How about Barack?

This is getting ridiculous. I know the media has a vested interest in the presidential elections. But it's getting blatantly obvious who they're pushing.

CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and FOX are all declaring Barack Obama the winner in the Georgia primaries. Let me rephrase that... they are predicting that Barack Obama is the winner based on exit polls.

But you wouldn't know that these are only predictions from their websites or reporting.

"OBAMA WINS GEORGIA" is plastered all over the web. Where are the numbers? How many precincts have reported? How many votes have been tallied? Is this official?

There are absolutely no numbers posted on any news websites as of 16:15 PM PST (19:15 PM EST). Maybe he did win. Maybe he didn't. But, no one would know, since there aren't any numbers up!

Knock it off, Media. Didn't you learn your lesson from Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000? Let the officials do the counting and reporting.

Last night my daughter and I were walking towards the bus stop near her preschool, when my daughter bolted and ran up to this stranger standing at the bus shelter. Ever the over-protective parent, I ran after her; and in my most patient, sensitive, supportive male-role-model voice, kindly requested that she calm her body for the betterment of the whole.

"I wanted to tell that lady what I liked her makeup and cool boots," she said, standing next to her new fashion friend.

I chuckled.

"I like your makeup," my daughter said to the person standing next to her.

I chuckled again.

My daughter is five years old, and a pink freak. Ninety-nine percent of her clothes are pink. Her favorite color is pink. Her dolls are pink. Her comforter is pink. Pink pink pink.

Her new fashion friend? A totally decked out goth. Long, straight black hair. White face paint makeup. Over-painted black lipstick and black Cleopatra eyes. Black clothes, plenty of silver crosses and studs, and knee-high multi-buckle platform leather boots.

And he wasn't too happy about standing next to an uber-pink preschooler.

Which was why I was amused. I find it interesting that people who choose to put on an appearance for the express purpose of being different or being noticed can become so incensed when people actually notice them. If one put their appearance out there in such an extreme  manner, then don't be surprised if people notice and comment. Regardless of how extensive our attachments are to our own subgroup, family, or clique, we're not cut off from others in our own silos.

Whenever we choose to be different, to buck the trend, we put ourselves out there to be judged. Is it fair? Is it just a part of human nature? I don't know - maybe I'll write about that later. But, it does happen. And what I find most interesting, through my own personal experience, is that the louder the difference, the more incensed one gets at questions or criticism. I mean, this cultivated look or position must be appreciated by all! To question means you do not understand, you are ignorant, you are naive, a tool, a pawn, brainwashed, meat-puppet, whatever.

This extends well into the political sphere through war protesters, war promoters, Republican talking heads, Liberal talking heads, pundits, leaders, etc.    

Clinton and Obama supporters, too. More so than most, I'm afraid. Both sides throw out ad hominem attacks, dig up totally irrelevant dirt, use ALL CAPS TO MAKE THEIR POINT!!!111!, and generally find any way to make two similarly competent people seem the total extreme from one another.

And whoa be unto those who question The Supporter.

Don't be surprised if you get attention by choosing to be the political goth. Put yourself out there long enough, loud enough, and extreme enough, and you're bound to get noticed. Some of the comments will be positive, some will be negative, some will be highly ironic and miss your point entirely like with my daughter.

Just don't get upset at them for noticing your purposeful political extremism.

This commentary by Roland Martin is pretty much what I'm talking about with regards to my last post.

The editorial addresses the hypothetical of either Clinton or Obama being the running mate of the respective candidate if nominated. It is full of just plain conjectures to make Ms Clinton look like an over-reaching egocentric power-grabber.

1. Clinton will not be overshadowed by an underling.

First off, really? How do you know that Roland, have you asked Ms Clinton? Second, do you really know that Ms Clinton views Mr Obama as an "underling"? Mr Obama doesn't work for Ms Clinton, he's not necessarily junior to her. So why use the classist, and (with Mr Martin's past tendency to make racial mountains out of molehills) racially charged terminology of "underling"?

Sure, their attacks on one another are what you expect in a campaign, but it has gotten very personal. Obama says she is a return to the "politics of old," and that doesn't bring a smile to her face. The race-baiting Southern Strategy used by former President Bill Clinton and the surrogates of Sen. Clinton have absolutely angered Obama's camp. There is too much blood on the floor, and you just don't forget that.

Notice that Roland doesn't discount the Obama attacks on Ms Clinton ("that doesn't bring a smile to her face")? Yet, he lets loose with the racial charges, as well as voicing strong sentiment from the Obama camp ("have absolutely angered Obama's camp"). Why unbalance the responses like that?

4. Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Clinton.

Again, how do you know that Roland? This paints Ms Clinton as a power-hungry player. Why not also say "Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Obama." I mean, afterall, I'm sure that's just as true with Obama as it is with Clinton.

Now, as a way out, I would expect to see these two on a ticket only if Clinton is the nominee and they run the numbers and determine that the best chance of winning would be with him. She wants to be president that bad and would discount the bad blood. Then, they would hope he accept it.

See, Roland talks about how impossible it would be for Obama to accept Ms Clinton as a running mate for VP, because of all these negative things about Ms Clinton. Mr Obama is so pure and ideological that he would apparently eschew his chance to be on the ticket if Ms Clinton was the nominee. Yet, Ms Clinton, ever the cold-hearted power-broker, would certainly put "bad blood" behind her, because "she wants to be president that bad..."

It's ridiculous, and obvious, the double-standard associated with Ms Clinton. Even though I don't support her presidency, I certainly don't support this vilification.

Reading some of the comments on Andrew's TPM Cafe upgrade thread reminded me of my thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and the general discourse within the Democratic Party.

We have apparently lost the Tracker feature, as well as some comment functionality with the new modules. And, as predictable, there were a few "No tracker? I'm outta here!" types of complaints.

It's that either/or type of decision that irks me. Because of one (or a few) features are no longer available, readers will move away from a site never to return. A site with great commentary, a site with good people, a site with plenty of potential. Nah, screw all that, we lost the Tracker. People would rather complain about the site and drop reading it.

The same thing is going on between Hillary and Barrack. Obama is surging in the polls. He's putting out some great speeches, and he's getting some amazing endorsements. He's definitely the driver for change (although, I still would rather have voted for Edwards).

But does that mean the vilification of Hillary is justified? Of course this is a political race, and only the best should rise to the top. Of course other national leaders will be just as hard-hitting in their criticism of the next American administration. But, are Democrats really about the either/or? If Barrack is good, then Hillary must be bad? Or, are we better than that?

Do Hillary rejectors really believe she is an evil woman? That she has not done anything positive? That she is a racist, sexist, opportunistic power-monger? That she's in the same league as George Bush?

Do we really need such negative hyperbole?

This is what I see in the Liberal blogosphere.

As much as I don't like some of Hillary's politics (including the vote to authorize military action in Iraq), I simply cannot see myself attacking her for the purpose of painting her a villain or Republican. She's still a Democrat, and the Democrats are supposedly the part of inclusion. Let's address Hillary and her campaign as informed conversationalists; not as Democratic Rovian wannabe hatchet-men.

And with the site... Yeah, I'm bummed we lost the Tracker functionality. There's plenty of other things to like about TPM Cafe, though. Read the excellent articles, reader posts, etc. Do what you can with the social aspects of the site. Voice your concerns, though. That's what webmasters are for. Just don't give up on it wholesale. It doesn't have to be an either/or decision.

Oregon voters take to the mailboxes on May 20th for its presidential primary election. Although Oregonians tend to be very politically active, more can be done to extend Oregon's influence on national politics.

I've discussed - complained, if you will - my frustrations with the idea that Oregon seems to be irrelevant to national elections. We are not part of Super Tuesday, we are not first primaries, we don't even have a lot of delegates. Add in the fact that MSM tends to call elections before our results are even counted (due to the time difference), and our elections are pretty moot.

To the dismay of many Oregon voters, however, this politically active swing state has been relegated to the sidelines during the national Super Tuesday events.

“It’s just nuts, the way the whole primary system is front-loaded,” [Bradbury] said, using the election term that refers to the biggest states holding their caucuses first.

By the time Oregon’s primary rolls around, “it’s not likely that our votes are going to really matter,” he said. “It’s not likely we’re going to get much attention from anybody.”

That's why I like Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury's idea of a rotating primary season.

The new system would group primaries or caucuses by region on a rotating basis beginning in 2012.

A lottery would be held to determine which region would go first in March, and that region would move to the end of the primary calendar for the following presidential election cycle. Subsequent regions would hold their primaries in April, May and June.

The only exceptions to the system would be Iowa and New Hampshire, which would retain their early time slots based on their traditions as small, easy stomping grounds for underfunded, lesser-known candidates.

Bradbury mentions the typical political benefits of a rotating primary season.

Bradbury said Oregon voters would benefit because candidates would be forced to bone up on issues of local importance and campaign in each region; in the Pacific Northwest, they would be vetting issues like forestry, salmon and renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest.

There's also the economic benefit. Early states get millions of dollars in campaign revenue. Local news organizations and print media can take in additional ad revenue due to increased viewership and circulation. Candidates spend days, with their coterie, spending money in the local economy.

Let's also not forget the current legal battles with Michigan and Florida, with regards to their Democratic Party delegates. Due to the state parties' feelings of disenfranchisement, both states moved their primaries up to be more influential and ended up getting their delegates stripped from the Democratic National Convention. A rotating regional primary schedule would provide these states with the ability to move ahead in the primary season without incurring penalties.

Overall, I view this as a win-win for candidates, states, and the citizenry.

[Cross-posted at PROJECT: Lucidity]

Geo-engineering. Possibly taking Scorched Earth to the extreme?

The offensive use of geoengineering could take a variety of forms. Overproductive algae blooms can actually sterilize large stretches of ocean over time, effectively destroying fisheries and local ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide carries health risks when it cycles out of the stratosphere. One proposal would pull cooler water from the deep oceans to the surface in an explicit attempt to shift the trajectories of hurricanes. Some actors might even deploy counter-geoengineering projects to slow or alter the effects of other efforts.

Humans have used the terrain and environment as part of warfare since Ancient Greece. But, those were localized efforts. This would be on a global scale, outside the zone of conflict; and shows the potential for much longer-term impact.

Either that, or a really good plot for an Austin Powers movie.

Have you noticed that every state this election cycle is a "bellwether" of some type of group?

• Iowa - Bellwether for evangelicals voters (GOP), bellwether for the young voters (Democratic).
• New Hampshire - Bellwether for the Independent voters.
• Nevada - Bellwether for the union workers (Democratic), bellwether for the Mormons (GOP).
• Michigan - Bellwether for economics policy.
• South Carolina - Bellwether for African-American voters.

Now, it appears that Florida will be the bellwether for Latino voters.

Considering Oregon is historically ignored in national elections, it'll be interesting to see what kind of bellwether our votes will portend.

It looks as though Kosovo is prepared to declare independence from Serbia in a matter of days. Self-determination and self-rule are not something I've taken a lot of time to research and learn about. I think, mainly, because it's such a central theme to the always volatile Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unless one is dogmatically rigid, there are valid concerns on both sides of Kosovo and Serbia (as well as for Israel and Palestine).

One comment that struck me:

The future status of Kosovo is also an important issue in the Serbian presidential election, which goes to a second round early next month.

The BBC's Oana Lungescu says the EU wants [Kosovo's Prime Minister] Hashim Thaci to delay declaring independence until the election is over.

Waiting seems to be a recurring theme in the talks. Wait until the spring, wait until the UN Security Council convenes, wait until the Serbian economy is stronger, wait until Serbia enters the EU. Now, Kosovo is told to wait until after the Serbian election.

I can certainly see the reasoning behind waiting for after the elections, considering how emotional this issue is. But, won't there always be a reason for waiting? Russia is dragging its feet in the UN Security Council. Serbia flat out doesn't want Kosovo independence. So, why wait? Russia will not move faster - and if they do it will probably be to veto a resolution calling for Kosovar independence. Serbia isn't going to change its tune.

So, why wait?

Kenya is poised on the edge of a knife. Opposition to the current "President", Mr Mwai Kibaki, has started to slack, but has not stopped. The past three weeks has seen violence, bloodshed, death, and destruction in this East African country.

China Post reports last Friday that the opposition will continue their protests with economic boycotts and strikes:

Their protests weakened by a harsh police crackdown and weary supporters, Kenya's embattled opposition said Friday they would turn to economic boycotts and strikes to keep up pressure against President Mwai Kibaki, whom they accuse of rigging the country's recent election.

Opposition spokesman Salim Lone vowed a third and final day of rowdy rallies, in which at least 10 people have died, would continue nationwide Friday.

Next, he said, the opposition would urge consumers "boycott companies owned by hard-liners who are around Mr. Kibaki" and work with unions "to organize strikes in selected industries." He declined to give details.

This is an important development in sub-Sahara Africa, and not just because of the violence (which is important in, and of, itself). This election was important, because it was expected to help cement democracy in Kenya, and establish a model for the rest of Africa.

Elections are not the end-all, be-all of democracy. I know that U.S. media outlets would have us think that waving purple fingers are the endgame of democracy. Of course, the purple fingers and ballots are mediagenic. But there's more to a stable, mature democracy than voting. The former Soviet Union held elections. Saddam Hussein's Iraq held elections. Iran holds elections. Apartheid-era South Africa held elections. The list goes on.

What's equally important are the transparency of the elections, as well as the peaceful handover of executive power after an election that signals a mature, vibrant democracy.

Mr Kibaki blew the opportunity for developing Kenya's democracy. He blew the opportunity to for Kenya to be a model African country. Instead, he'd rather consolidate power, stuff ballot boxes, and appoint cronies to cabinet / ministry positions.

The Economist has an excellent series on what's going on in Kenya, what it means internationally, and why its important to the United States. If interested, I would suggest reading this article, and this article.

Corporate social responsibility doesn't necessarily harm business, but it doesn't necessarily boost profits either. This leader reflects my personal viewpoint of corporate social responsibility:

So the apparent triumph of CSR should prompt humility, not hubris. There is money to be made in doing good. But firms are not there to solve the world's political problems. It is the job of governments to govern; don't let them wiggle out of it.

Firms should definitely take all stakeholders into account, including environmental ones. But, remember, it's undemocratic to insist the industries write their own regulations; that's the job of our elected leaders.