Named, back a few months ago when i bothered to keep up with my email. i was roaring and ready to go, but there was a lot...and i do mean a great deal...of quibbling as to "how to do this." and over exactly what "this" was. who qualifies? how much should they get? how will the flow of money be made regular? should blogs charge readers a fee? who would be "in charge" of the whole kit and kaboodle? etc.

now, if we were republicans, none of these questions would be an issue. i'm glad susie is leading the charge, and goddess knows if someone wanted to pay me to blog i'd go back to full time political blogging immediately, but i think i know what will come of this, and unfortunately the answer is "not much."

it seems to me that treating political bloggers as one big group of similar people will never accomplish anything. i made the (obviously foolish) suggestion, back when maria died, that the democratic party could offer health care to people who do work for it...no one even bothered to reply to that suggestion, so it must have been really stupid.

and cynically, i will say that i find it...interesting how most of these kinds of calls for employment action lead to one or two bloggers getting campaign jobs and the like and then the silence descends. otoh, i don't really know if my work had any "value" in a capitalist system, which is why i've never asked for money or donations nor do i expect them. i do what i do (and did) because i care about the issues, and that's enough for me. it's likely i'll always be poor, and it doesn't really bother me too much, even as i dream for a day when the democratic party treats intellectual talent in the way it deserves.

I'm reading this on a break at my JOB. I blog as I can.

I find it absurd that bloggers want to be able to blog for a living without actually having to develop a loyal readership that would support them.

Blog because you give a shit.. or don't. Don't think the movement can't survive if you decide you need to get a paying job.

What is wrong with bloggers trying to build a support system for themselves?

What is wrong with people wanting to blog full time, or even with a part-time job, without facing death by lack of insurance?

Susie's comment section is infested by similar "get a job lazy hippie" trolls. Help her out if you feel like it.

Why is any dissenting point of view suddenly trolling? It's not a troll, it's a valid criticsm. What's with the knee-jerk reaction.

Now, I'm as liberal as they come.. a regular "far left" homo.. but I also am responsible for paying my bills and making sure I take care of my health given the way the current system works. My partner is self-employed so he has to pay for his own policy, which is absurdly expensive for horrible benefits.. but at least it's something.

If bloggers want to find money someplace to pay their bills, that's great. It's particularly good if they can just throw up a donation link and have something worthwhile to say that people feel they want to support. But don't try and tell me that just because they blog and support the movement, that movement owes them something. They are owed nothing. You blog because you care, or you don't. It's that simple.

Personally, I donate to Americablog because Aravosis has a major impact and advances the cause far better than a legion of unknowns who simply preach to the choir.

In the end, I think it's all about "blog envy".

My blog is huge. That's why we call it the Mighty Corrente Building.

I think many people are confused about whether blogging should be an entrepreneurial business or a political movement or both.

Big Blue (Atrios) and the Great Orange Satan (Kos), among a few others, "got big fast" in the dot-com era parlance. Like Google and the other search engines back in the day, the big blogs worked hard and collaborated to become ubiquitous so that they would be "the only game in town".

Blogging had started as a movement, trying to bring in the most people possible, giving credit and welcoming new blogs that had valuable things to say. But at some point, and the stupid Blog Amnesty thing was an obvious symptom, the A-list bloggers decided that it was not in their interest to support and recognize the smaller blogs.

Are you familiar with the concept of the Long Tail? According to this theory, the "legion of unknown" bloggers could have more readers, combined, than the A-list blogs.

So the Long Tail blogs, as far as significance to the political movement, might have just as much impact as the Short Tail blogs. But at this point, only a handful of A-listers are able to make a living from their activities.

Does this mean that the B and C list bloggers should fuck off and die? Did the recently departed bloggers deserve their fate because it was their own fault they didn't have insurance?

First of all nobody should die for lack of insurance. Until this problem is resolved, I don't see why you would object to bloggers banding together to fund an insurance program for themselves.

Maybe you would object because you're the one who is envious. "I have to work my ass off and now these lazy hippies want insurance for ranting on the internets, fuck them."

Oh come on. It's irrelevant if it's in the interest of "A list" bloggers to promote others. It's not their responsibility. Atrios, in particular, has written about this (which I'm sure you've read). He simply wanted to recompile his links to blogs that he actually reads, and there's nothing wrong with that. A link at Kos or Eschaton is irrelevant... Greenwald came out of nowhere, has written two popular books and got a gig at Salon, soley based on his writing and effort. Anyone else can do it.

A small handful of top bloggers gets some help: Fellowships, stipends, consulting gigs. The rest of us? Bubkis.

That's simply asking for support. Great.. but you and Madrak are whining for not getting that support. That's life. The "long tail" will always be there regardless as long as people are passionate about their politics. If they "fuck off" is up to each blogger. That's simply the nature of the political writing on the internet.

I don't have a single issue with bloggers trying to "band together". I hope it works out for you. The problem is the sense of entitlement you have. I sympathize with the insurance problem, and I would prefer a single-payer system that covers everyone, but we live in the here and now. If you subject yourself to life threatening illness because you would rather blog than get health insurance, well, I think that's just insane.

I have no envy for having to work. I like my job, I like paying my bills, I like vacations, I like the idea of an early retirement, I like quality health insurance. What I can do for the movement (donating, and my own shitty blog), I will do. I don't have any desire for self-promotion. I write my lame posts, and some people like them.. some people dispise them.. but I don't expect anything for doing it.

I will not kill myself for it.

Send me private mail, and I'll give you an address so you can send a check!

[rimshot, laughter. I'll be here all week--try the veal!]

Seriously, though -- sense of entitlement? Where do you get that from? I think Suzie hit the nail right on the head: If Jim been a right wing shill, he'd be a made man, and he'd be alive today.

So, Jim did, actually, kill himself blogging, and moreover, helped a lot of us Philly bloggers get started. A highly moral act, wouldn't you say? The act of a good man? Worthy of emulation, not scorn?

But I'm going to be charitable--because I think you're protesting just a wee bit too much. Maybe you're not really as happy with the choices you've made in life as you'd have your readers believe?

And before I forget: I know what the long tail is. And, personally, I don't expect to get paid. More power to Suzie, though.

However, I'd be curious to know your reasoning that only the very top of the long tail should be paid.

Leave the ethics out of it. Hasn't the apparatus that the VRWC developed worked out very well for them, in terms of getting their goals accomplished? They work their way down the long tail quite a bit, I would say, all the way down to fifth rate cable weasels and college Republicans. And though I can't prove it, I think that the 10,000 unknown voices, collectively, carry just as much weight as the 10 known ones -- because the 10,000 unknown voices are all somebody's neighbor or family member.

Incidentally, as far as building a loyal readership, we're 4000 on the technorati list. No big shakes, I know... But pretty high up for a "legion of unknowns."

Re: The A List. I don't worry about the A list, I worry about my voice and our own voices, and that seems to be working, at least so far. Some A-listers link to us; that's great. Some don't; that's their prerogative. What I do know is that we're read, and by people, Thomas, that I don't propose to name. ;-) And who said circulation numbers were equal to influence?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

meaning assistance for people who don't deserve it.
Some people feel "entitled" to luxuries like health care, while the rest of us work hard to earn it.

Sounds to me like you're applying a LiberRetarDian perspective to the progressive blogosphere. "Some people make it and those who don't? Well, they're fucked and it's their own fault. That's life and that's reality, tough titties."

A progressive perspective is that those who make it do have a responsibility to those who don't. Recognizing that they would not have made it without the support and infrastructure generated by the entire community.

Susie Madrak is pointing out that something is wrong when the blogosphere as a whole raises millions of dollars for the Dems but members of the community die for lack of health care. I agree.

Also, Steve Gilliard and Jim Capozzola are not the same as you and your personal blog. They were actively involved in building the blogsphere from it's very beginnings and devoted inordinate amounts of time to the movement.

And I don't think it's the case that they made the choice of "I refuse to work so I can play on the internets all day". People get laid off, get too sick to work, work part time, etc. All the reasons the millions of uninsured Americans are uninsured: it's not because they're lazy.

So when something like that happens to a valued member of the progressive blog community, it would be a worthwhile endeavor to find a way of providing them with some minimal coverage. And if there is a way to spread the Gravy Train around beyond the 4-5 bloggers who currently have access to it that would be a good thing too.

Also, it's important to support the Long Tail blogs. They make sure that there is a fresh, bottom-up dynamic to the blogosphere. This would not happen if the blogosphere is composed exclusively of a handful of paid bloggers who can be easy targets for manipulation by politicians and corporations.

It's not necessarily true that the Long Tail will always be there. People eventually get sick of not being recognized and working for free and drop out.

In summation, I don't think you will ever support Susie's efforts, but there's no reason to be against her for trying.

You know, I usually agree with just about all the points posted here at Corrente, but I'm just bewildered by the points you're making on this issue.

Seriously, though — sense of entitlement? Where do you get that from?

I get that from comments like this;

If Jim been a right wing shill, he’d be a made man, and he’d be alive today.

Because the he would theoretically be taken care of by the VRWC, he's entitled to have had the same from the VLWC? I can see that the case can be made that more people should be in the "think tank", but which people? Is there a scoring system? Hits? I just get the impression that some people think they deserve what they aren't currently getting and that is what "entitlement" means to me.

So, Jim did, actually, kill himself blogging, and moreover, helped a lot of us Philly bloggers get started. A highly moral act, wouldn’t you say? The act of a good man? Worthy of emulation, not scorn?

Wow.. /boggle

Look, I don't scorn him for it. I pity him for it. There are causes for which risking ones life is nobel. Blogging isn't it. I think it's pretty out there to use the word "emulation" in reference to a man who essentially killed himself blogging. No.. I'm sorry.. that's just crazy.

But I’m going to be charitable—because I think you’re protesting just a wee bit too much. Maybe you’re not really as happy with the choices you’ve made in life as you’d have your readers believe?

I'm really quite pleased with how things are going. I have an advanced engineering degree, and work for a great company supporting the VA. I get a lot of satisfaction from my work, which directly impacts the treatment of our service members. Blogging is an outlet for me. I have no ego regarding the blog. I'm somewhat bitter I don't look like Brad Pitt, but that's just genetics for you.

However, I’d be curious to know your reasoning that only the very top of the long tail should be paid.

I'm not saying they are the only ones that "should" be paid. I'm saying they are the ones that have earned it. It's Econ 101. Greenwald is a perfect example. He's a baby in blogging years, but has achieved a lot. It's just like anything, you go where your talent and effort takes you. I didn't ask for my paycheck. I earned it from years of work to get to this point in my career. People with money want to buy my product; my efforts. You may think the VLWC are short-sighted for not buying the bloggers product. It's that economics thing again.

I think that the 10,000 unknown voices, collectively, carry just as much weight as the 10 known ones — because the 10,000 unknown voices are all somebody’s neighbor or family member.

Yes, that's probably quite true, but in the big picture, it doesn't matter if some "B listers" quit blogging because they need to pay the bills. There are 9,999 other unknowns and more being added every day. It would be nice if everyone could blog and get paid a living wage, but it's just not going to happen.

Incidentally, as far as building a loyal readership, we’re 4000 on the technorati list. No big shakes, I know… But pretty high up for a “legion of unknowns.”

I certainly hope I didn't give the impression that I thought Corrente has a low readership. I know it's a very popular and well written blog. I'm just saying nobody is "entitled" to get paid.

Some A-listers link to us; that’s great. Some don’t; that’s their prerogative.

Shystee disagrees with you, apparently.

Sounds to me like you’re applying a LiberRetarDian perspective to the progressive blogosphere. “Some people make it and those who don’t? Well, they’re fucked and it’s their own fault. That’s life and that’s reality, tough titties.”

No.. I'm applying a capitalist point of view. You're asking for a communist blogging system.

Remember, we're talking about blogging. If somebody is in it for the financial possibilities, then I'll apply the "they're fucked" principal. Yep.

I'm not opposed to Susie's efforts. More power to her. I just disagree with the politics of it.

will starve you to death if you're not a commercial success.

Hell, even Kos and Atrios have other income. Tom Clancy has a day job selling insurance, and he has been the single best-selling author in the USA who doesn't write religious claptrap for 20 years...

So don't tell me to suck it up and either write for the love of writing, or quit writing and get a job, because I've been writing since third damn grade, when the "paycheck" was a note in red in the margin "good job!" or "well done!". I write for the love of it. I'm good at it, too; I've won awards in high school, college, and at AP papers. I was very proud of making my living writing for newspapers in the 1980s. Then the bottom fell out of newspapers. I got a job with the census, because if it didn't have insurance it did have the same wages without the 87-mile-each-way commute.

I volunteered; I wrote (and edited, and built and maintained websites) for churches and Habitat and Inter-Ethnic Parish and Scouts. People liked the writing, and the document design, and the layout, and the editing. But I was a volunteer and all the "attagirls" in the world didn't help pay for gas or put macaroni and cheese on the table. So I wrote fanfic on the internet for free, and people liked my writing there, too.

I got a job editing internal documents for a commercial enterprise, and an old newspaper boss called me up from time to time to judge newswriting contests for high school, and by golly, he even furnished coffee and snacks for the judges. And I wrote sports on the Internet for 3 cents a word and a press pass so I wouldn't get thrown out of practice (yes, I bought my own tickets and paid my own travel to the away games -- what, you thought Scout.com pays expenses and has benefits?).

So yeah, I know why the bloggers -- especially the younger ones -- want to get paid, or at least get help meeting the high cost of not dying in the good old USA. I've been there. I've done that. I've worn holes in the T-shirt, and holes in the patches on the holes in the T-shirt. But I still write.

Blogs are, today, what newspapers were in the 1870s through about the end of the Eagleton affair -- the watchdogs, the voice of the skeptics, the rat terrier nipping at official ankles every day so that, damn it, at least there's a little noise and inconvenience to go with all the jam in corruption. And there's at least some noise and celebration when the officials aren't corrupt, or do something actually right.

"No rendirse, muchachos!" William Barrett Travis, 1836

I ask:

Seriously, though — sense of entitlement? Where do you get that from?

And you answer:

I get that from comments like this;

If Jim been a right wing shill, he’d be a made man, and he’d be alive today.

I don't see how. Maybe it's because I don't write so good. It's really just a simple statement of fact. The VRWC takes care of its own. Progressives don't. Apparently, you think that's a wise policy. The VRWC didn't and doesn't, and the results have been very good for them, and very bad for us. So enough with the entitlement straw man at this blog, please.

And here's the nub of the matter from a moral perspective:

Wow.. /boggle

Look, I don’t scorn him for it. I pity him for it. There are causes for which risking ones life is nobel. Blogging isn’t it. I think it’s pretty out there to use the word “emulation” in reference to a man who essentially killed himself blogging. No.. I’m sorry.. that’s just crazy.

Well, I don't see why you think it's "out there." (What next? "Dirty fucking hippies"?). Five years ago, there was simply no infrastructure, nothing, nada, zip, besides the occasional column from Paul Krugman. Then we built the blogosphere, and now there is. We didn't do all of it, and I don't know how you prove how much of it we did do. Apparently enough for you to write checks to AmericaBlog, which I guess is the operational test of success.

So, building that infrastructure was the cause. And if Jim did what he wanted to do, if Jim took the body for the rest of us, which he did... Well, I really don't think he would want your ""pity""--double quotes both for the direct quotation and the so-called-ness of the claim--for doing the right thing; nor do I.

And now it's my turn to boggle. I wrote:

I’d be curious to know your reasoning that only the very top of the long tail should be paid.

You answered:

I’m not saying they are the only ones that “should” be paid. I’m saying they are the ones that have earned it. It’s Econ 101. Greenwald is a perfect example. He’s a baby in blogging years, but has achieved a lot. It’s just like anything, you go where your talent and effort takes you. I didn’t ask for my paycheck. I earned it from years of work to get to this point in my career. People with money want to buy my product; my efforts. You may think the VLWC are short-sighted for not buying the bloggers product. It’s that economics thing again.

Except I also wrote, which, oddly or not, you don't address directly:

Hasn’t the apparatus that the VRWC developed worked out very well for them, in terms of getting their goals accomplished? They work their way down the long tail quite a bit, I would say, all the way down to fifth rate cable weasels and college Republicans.

So, I really don't care about some econ course you took in college. I care about what works. That strategy worked for the VRWC, so why not apply it?

(Another way of looking at this is that they invest in their people over the long haul, and that too, pays off for them. Your "pay the A-listers only" concept would have meant they only paid, say, Whittaker Chambers and never got round to Karl Rove when he was just a grublet because, gosh darn it, he just wasn't good enough yet.)

So, Thomas, I think you're wrong on the morals and wrong on the pragmatics. And no, I don't feel entitled. And yes, it's OK that Shystee and I disagree (duh, for anybody but an authoritarian).

Of course, the real answer to this is universal health insurance. If that had been in place, Jim's life would have been saved as well.

P.S. I still think you're protesting too much about how good your job is and how you earned it all. I bet there's an interesting backstory here. VA?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

+++

... but every day, something new!

I just reread the thread, and caught this beauty from Thomas:

No... I’m applying a capitalist point of view. You’re asking for a communist blogging system.

I smell Ch-e-e-e-e-t-o-h-s!

Actually, what I'm arguing--and gee, I'd hate anybody to think I was whining, or that Susie, fresh from the deathbed of a good friend, hasn't sucked it up yet and "gotten over it," as we say--is that just maybe, emulating the approach the VWRC has taken to propagating their ideas might be a worth taking a look at. I can't answer for what others say, but that's my take.

Now, it's really NOT clear to me how emulating what's been successful in the right wing infrastructure is "communist," or how the wingers got that idea. Is it because the neo-cons are all former Trots? Is it because the A-list is espousing "the leading role of the Party"? Is it the sealed train across the Beltway border?

Well, I've wasted entirely too much time on this. Even in the world of unpaid blogging, there's such a thing as opportunity cost. Goodbye.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Thomas, as a professional, Ph.D. biomedical scientist, fully employed, who nonetheless maintains a daily blog of his own and comes over here to throw additional fruit from the trees at the Company paper tigers, let me say:

Go Cheney yourself.

Professional progressive bloggering is a legitimate lifestyle. If people who have a mundane job don't like it, or seethe with envy, they don't have to donate. I wouldn't want to do it: but I don't resent the people that do. Rather I admire and encourage them, especially if they perform valuable services, like Gillard and Rittenhouse did.

No, I can't give money. But I can give respect.

Universal health insurance is a solution... but don't expect it any time soon.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Really?

And I'm not surprised to see the trite "concern troll" euphemism trotted out. Seems to happen anytime someone who agrees on most issues decides to dissent, and it's over-used to the point that it really has no meaning.

For what it's worth, your Karl Rove analogy totally doesn't work. If some politician thinks your (and I mean "your" in a generic sense) advice is worthwhile, they'll hire you and pay you for consulting.

And I really have no clue why you think I can't be happy in my profession, but I really feel no need to prove that. There is no back-story.

Professional progressive bloggering is a legitimate lifestyle. If people who have a mundane job don’t like it, or seethe with envy, they don’t have to donate. I wouldn’t want to do it: but I don’t resent the people that do.

I really don't get why anyone would argue against points I never made. But if the entire argument here is that the "VLWC" should emulate the "VRWC", then fine.. cool.. Good luck with that.

And I still find it bizarre that you think falling on one's keyboard to be noble.. but that's just me.

Where to begin....

Well, I'm a fan of direct refutation, so let's start there.

Hell, even Kos and Atrios have other income. Tom Clancy has a day job selling insurance, and he has been the single best-selling author in the USA who doesn’t write religious claptrap for 20 years…

Funny, they also have a choice. They can choose whether or not to be in a profession that doesn't measure up to their standard of living. Do you see Clancy asking for donations from his readers because he can't have a swimming pool? Of course not. He is probably a rational human being and realizes that if he wants a swimming pool, he should go out and get one himself not only because it might give him satisfaction, but because he probably can't because of the same reaction you are getting right now.

Sarah write:

Okay, so you knew exactly what you were getting into. You knew what was going to happen, how life would be, and what sacrifices would be made. And you chose to do it anyway. Note the word chose. And now you want people to pay you because you do something you chose to do knowing you probably wouldn't make it.

Let me make this clear. Putting a link up on a site and saying that you appreciate any support people are willing to give is great. That IS free enterprise. However, what you are advocating, both on a realist and idealist perspective is that you should get funds because the Republicans get funds, and then add some diatribe to it to drum up sympathy.

I'm sorry, but I can't have sympathy for people who know what the consequence of an action or career is, and do it in spite of that. You knew what you were getting into and chose to do it anyway. It's like trying to feel sorry for people who get tasered after resisting arrest when the cop is waving a taser in front of them saying "I will use this" a few dozen times. You knew what it would be like, which kind of kills the sympathy. If you knew what it was like, why then are you complaining about those conditions now?

I don’t see how. Maybe it’s because I don’t write so good. It’s really just a simple statement of fact. The VRWC takes care of its own. Progressives don’t. Apparently, you think that’s a wise policy. The VRWC didn’t and doesn’t, and the results have been very good for them, and very bad for us. So enough with the entitlement straw man at this blog, please.

This is the part I may agree with. If it's a strategy that works, then use it. Do you really believe the people employed by the DNC don't see that? Do you believe they don't have people doing analysis? This is the only argument I can see to be made in this conversation. From a purely strategic point, it could make sense. However, why are you blogging about an issue that only the DNC has any control over? Doesn't that smack of waste of time?

The other thing that I think you get into here is the mixed message of altruism this would send.

I hate ad hominem attacks as I don't think they serve a purpose 99% of the time and needlessly degrade a debate into playground name calling. However, there is always a question of bias based on funding. It happens in the Global Warming debate, it happens in the Evolution debate, it happens everywhere.

A true progressive blogger blogs issues, not parties. Therefore, how can you expect the DNC to invest in a progressive blogosphere that may or may not follow them? And, if they do follow them, lose readership to cries of bias? Are you fond of being called an industrial stooge? Being truly progressive and truly altruistic is to be independent of all agencies and status quo influence. You compromise that having funding. To use a somewhat trite cliche, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here's where lambert loses all objectivity and start with the knee-jerk reactionary comments.

Well, I don’t see why you think it’s “out there.” (What next? “Dirty fucking hippies”?).

Where does Thomas insinuate that anywhere? Where do you get that from? What a ridiculous statement. I don't understand how you rationalize that statement, but it's got to be, in the words of Galois, "an elegant proof."

Five years ago, there was simply no infrastructure, nothing, nada, zip, besides the occasional column from Paul Krugman. Then we built the blogosphere, and now there is. We didn’t do all of it, and I don’t know how you prove how much of it we did do. Apparently enough for you to write checks to AmericaBlog, which I guess is the operational test of success.

Please explain, then, how you would objectively quantify success? Would it be number of readers or hits? Perhaps big words used?

In other words, if such money were available, could you offer up some standard to which blogs would be held in order to receive said funds? Need I remind you the threat of bias is looming.

The fact is that in every realistic category the "A list"...whatever that is...blogs would win. That's why they get money. They are at the top of the quantifiable spectrum. You don't because you aren't. For whatever reason, you aren't. That doesn't mean your blog is bad, or that your blog isn't better. There are a lot of things in society that defy evolutionary norms.

So, building that infrastructure was the cause. And if Jim did what he wanted to do, if Jim took the body for the rest of us, which he did… Well, I really don’t think he would want your “”pity”“—double quotes both for the direct quotation and the so-called-ness of the claim—for doing the right thing; nor do I.

What so-called-ness? It seems to me that you are using this as an opportunity as self-righteousness. You put him on a pedestal for dying to get the word out, a word that while important would've gotten out regardless if he had quit blogging on order to survive or not, ironically another counter-evolutionary parallel. You then proceed to tell us how like him you are, and that you deserve more. Then prove that you deserve more. Do more, be more provocative, gather a reader base that will allow you to do that. Is that such a foreign concept? To martyr someone you care about in such a way is quite a foreign concept to me. Would he suggest, if he were to come back, that any of you do the same?

P.S. I still think you’re protesting too much about how good your job is and how you earned it all. I bet there’s an interesting backstory here. VA?

Again a ridiculous, illogical, and reflexive attack. You answers your question of his satisfaction of his job, which apparently you have a device that reads that through the Internet...I guess it's my turn to /boggle...once and then again when you repeatedly question his employment, and that makes him unsatisfied? He explains what he does and why he is satisfied when asked to do so by you and that means it is false?

I do envy a lifestyle of blogging to an extent. That extent being my own personal welfare and a reasonable standard of living. I don't envy martyrs who sacrifice needlessly. How does dying to promote blogging help the progressive cause? Doesn't it, in fact, hurt the cause by having one less person to further it? How does you being impoverished help your cause? Would you be completely impotent as a blogger if you had a jump that kept you above water? I fail to see how these things are mutually exclusive, except that you want them to be so you can envy people like Kos and Atrios.

Needless martyrdom never serves a cause, it only serves the individuals sense of worth.

Now, it’s really NOT clear to me how emulating what’s been successful in the right wing infrastructure is “communist,” or how the wingers got that idea. Is it because the neo-cons are all former Trots? Is it because the A-list is espousing “the leading role of the Party”? Is it the sealed train across the Beltway border?

Non-profit organizations are inherently communist, you just don't think about it in those terms because that isn't how it's presented.

You have an a corporate entity that relies on the donations of people with more in order to serve the perceived need of others who can't help themselves except through the organization? Money flows from those with money to those without for the purpose of providing the masses with a service the group feels the masses need.

How is that not communist again?

Go Cheney yourself.

For someone with a PhD your wit and witticism, along with a penitent for substantive arguments is astounding. I salute you as a paragon sir.

Professional progressive bloggering is a legitimate lifestyle.

How? How do you measure that legitimacy? Most people would measure it as a standard of achievable maintainable lifestyle. If something is legitimate then it stands on it's own. How, then, is professional blogging legitimate?

If people who have a mundane job don’t like it, or seethe with envy, they don’t have to donate. I wouldn’t want to do it: but I don’t resent the people that do. Rather I admire and encourage them, especially if they perform valuable services, like Gillard and Rittenhouse did.

It is odd that you encourage them to wallow in self-proclaimed poverty while you sit with a retirement plan, health ensurance, and a standard of living with which you are happy. To quote another great author of our time, who doesn't sell insurance but write fascinating novels regardless of politics, "There is nothing more vile than a gulf stream environmentalist." I would argue that there is nothing more vile than a person from wealth encouraging those to stay impoverished because of a prescribed need they are providing. Sorry, I couldn't come up with a catchy euphemism.

Because the closer you get to the start of the tail, the closer you are to the asshole...

...for the rest of us

You write:

Non-profit organizations are inherently communist, you just don’t think about it in those terms because that isn’t how it’s presented.

So, I guess the Catholic church is crossing the Beltway border on the sealed train, along with Lenin, the Salvation Army and the VRWC. (I leave the Christianists out of it; of course they're in it for the money.)

But thanks for taking the time to comment! If you can get Thomas to write me a check, I'll write you a check, mkay?

As I said, there's opportunity cost even here. So, again, goodbye!

NOTE Re: "What next? Dirty Fucking Hippies?" Hey, it's entertainment! Where's your sense of humor?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

so much is intersecting here. let's all remain calm and focus on the issue, which isn't name calling, but the problems of the system in which all but the wealthiest 1% are slaves (underfed or not) in one way or another.

can't do it now, but i will come back to this. i've got some notes from the discussion i mentioned and i will share with you all.

I knew there wasn't any damn money.

There NEVER IS any money in a worthwhile enterprise.

That's why I carpentered for Habitat for Humanity, and drove trucks for Interfaith Hospitality for the Homeless.

Bought my own tools, paid for my own repairs, paid for my own fuel, etc. Because what I had that I could give was time and work, not money; and not being a professional carpenter or a professional truckdriver, I could make do with something old, but reliable, rather than having to have "the new hotness" in my tools (a handheld steel-handled one-piece smooth-face framing hammer with a nailset, instead of an electric air nailer, you dig? A 1982 Dodge pickup on a 2003 job site, you see?) and I could show up -- with my 21-year-old truck, my two hands, a tape measure, a hammer and a saw and a miter box, a carpenter's square, a pencil and a nail apron -- and be welcome; and do as much good as the Site Commander pilot who didn't know what "decking material" meant.

I hate the system in this country that counts the value of humans by the size of their bank accounts and annual incomes, period. That is such a sucky measure of such an artificial quality; it has no bearing on the real worth of a human being, on candor or wisdom, on generosity or skill. The war is a lie, and everything else based on profit is a false prophecy.

Nice to see the paid trolls still get their chains yanked good!

I have a job Daniel, meaning I'm a wage slave. I work about 12 hours a day in the lab or on my computer. They "pay" me a check. Most of it goes to my creditors within the first 24 hours.

I have health insurance. It can vaporize at any time, because my funding can vaporize at any time. Retirement gets you exactly zippity do-dah these days. I know too many professionals who can't retire, or work until they're dead, because living in 'Merika costs you. You start out head over heels in debt, and if you're lucky you ride the wave until it sucks you under.

Happy with my lifestyle? You aren't paying attention. I advocate slaying the beast I'm bound in. I'm a health professional for universal healthcare because it will send the pirate capitalists right out of medicine, and let the people who want to help others do their jobs.

But to the original topic at hand: bloggers have every right to do what they need to consolidate. I support their right to do that. Even if it costs. Or didn't you notice?

Wealthy? Progressive Democratic professionals are slaves. We know it, and we want to change it. The 0.1% that constitute Bu$hie's base are the real wealthy, with most of the money in 'Merika today.

The Republican professionals we too often find ourselves working with are slaves, too, but they seem to have the idea they can climb to the top by stepping on the people beneath them.

Sarah's absolutely right: The war is a lie, and everything else based on profit is a false prophecy. Especially when the size of the bank account- or more realistically the cash flow- is used to determine the value of a human being.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

If the point here is to make extraneous arguments about tangents you choose to go off on, then I guess you win.

Sarah: I don't need regaling about what you do and how you did it. The thing is it's already happened.

You say that the system by which we value human progress is flawed in that it values monetary gain over human accomplishment. Agreed. Do you have an alternative? Can you think of one? Better yet, can you think of one that could be realistically implemented?

However, this isn't the topic at hand, at least not directly. A private enterprise that seeks the donations of it's constituency in order to preserve itself was, last time I checked, the topic. You also want money from the DNC, which is a whole other argument entirely, one I might add which no one, thus far, has addressed.

I'll do direct refutation for kelley since his post is longer:

I have a job Daniel, meaning I’m a wage slave. I work about 12 hours a day in the lab or on my computer. They “pay” me a check. Most of it goes to my creditors within the first 24 hours.

So wait. Getting paid for a service means you are a "wage slave?" I don't see the validity of that statement, but I digress. I guess I, then, am supposed to feel sorry that you have a lot of debt and/or live above the means with which you support yourself. Sorry, but I find it hard to do.

I have health insurance. It can vaporize at any time, because my funding can vaporize at any time. Retirement gets you exactly zip-pity do-dah these days. I know too many professionals who can’t retire, or work until they’re dead, because living in ’Merika costs you. You start out head over heels in debt, and if you’re lucky you ride the wave until it sucks you under.

First off, this entire paragraph states nothing other than I know some people...And then I kind of shut off.

Somehow, being only 22, I have 4 years of college and 2 cars payed off. I am living on my own with a job working tech support at a bank making 12/hr. I also have an 2 IRAs and a 401k.

Long story short, my life isn't anything above average. There is no prerequisite training, special licensing, or privilege needed to attain my station yet, somehow, I come out not only afloat, but ahead.

So, you'll have to pardon me if I find your assertion that living in "Merika"...I guess that's supposed to be some bash against people who can't speak English well or who grew up in Louisiana, either way a comment in poor taste...is costly and that life is shit to not only be extremely fatalistic, but completely false. Especially in this economy.

Happy with my lifestyle? You aren’t paying attention. I advocate slaying the beast I’m bound in. I’m a health professional for universal healthcare because it will send the pirate capitalists right out of medicine, and let the people who want to help others do their jobs

Pirate capitalists? Ugh..I don't really want to turn this into a Universal Health care debate so I won't delve too much further into this topic. Suffice it to say that I believe kelley is more focused on the health care portion of this topic than its more general focus.

I'll admit, after this kelleys style of writing throws me off with his incoherent semi-rhetorical questions at the end of paragraphs that make no points. I may get sketchy here...

Wealthy? Progressive Democratic professionals are slaves. We know it, and we want to change it. The 0.1% that constitute Bu$hie’s base are the real wealthy, with most of the money in ’Merika today.

Again, the trite euphemisms I guess are cute in the Internet blogosphere.../shrug.

Again, you make no points. Yes, there are extremely wealthy people in America. And, according to you, they all back Bush and even if they don't they can't by progressive Democrats, a cute engineering of terms I'll admit, because then they would have to be poor. So I guess you are advocating a redistribution of wealth? From those according to their ability to those according to their needs? Sound familiar?

The Republican professionals we too often find ourselves working with are slaves, too, but they seem to have the idea they can climb to the top by stepping on the people beneath them.

Again the altruistic rant. Of course some people advance in a corporation. Not everyone is a CEO. That's how capitalism works. In fact, that's actually how Communism works too they just try and hide it.

I fail to see how any of this relates. The people best suited to a higher position in a corporation compete and the best person for the job gets the position. That's the point of competition, just like it's the point of debate. The best idea/person/product/service is the result.

How would you change it? Can you give me a step by step way in which to change this problem? I'd even settle at this point for a vague needling out of some broad systemic change. Anything. Right now it seems like your whining. You're whining that you don't make enough money to pay your bills (sounds more a personal problem tbh. You have a PhD and are obviously a fairly learned individual. Find a better job or stop living the way you do. I don't see why this concept is so hard for some people to grasp. People who complain about a situation that they have complete control over are simply willfully ignorant.) and that that, somehow, correlates to "progressive" democratic bloggers getting money. Sounds like something for your own blog to me.

This is where it gets patently ridiculous.

Sarah’s absolutely right: The war is a lie, and everything else based on profit is a false prophecy. Especially when the size of the bank account- or more realistically the cash flow- is used to determine the value of a human being.

Money is a tool. Money is an artificial measure of worth of goods and services, standardized and printed.

How then can a tool be evil? If I use a hammer to kill someone, am I evil, is the hammer evil, or are both of us evil?

A simplistic analogy, perhaps, but it gets the point across.

What about money that is used for such altruistic purposes? To help fight AIDS in Africa, to help crop production in South America, and to help feed hungry bloggers on the Internet. By your blanket quantification, that money is evil. Apparently, anything with worth is evil. Or, more specifically, anything with more worth than any other thing is evil.

I also object to the rather subjective assumption that human value is based on "cash flow." I don't feel that way and, from your ramblings that I can decipher, I don't think you do. How then is this statement correct?

See, you talk a lot about individual responsibility. How we are responsible to society. What about individual perspective? If you don't like that people with money are looked more highly upon, then don't. Stop looking up to people with money. Stop admiring them, stop wanting to be like them, and stop emulating and blogging about them. You have, again a crazy word I know, a choice as to how you view the world. Make that choice instead of others making that choice for you.

So you're saying money's no more evil than a gun.

Okay. I buy that.
A gun can be used to protect one's home.
A gun can be used to put food on one's table.
A gun can be used to rob and cheat and steal and oppress.

So can money.
The evil lies in the heart, and the action, of the user.

But a world where money, and making more money faster, is more important than anything else is a world gone off the rails -- and we're seeing that happen right before our eyes.

What was the purpose of invading Iraq?
If it was to get Saddam Hussein, well, he's been dead for months now. Why are we still there?
If it was to "liberate" the Iraqi people, well, Saddam's been out of power for YEARS. Why are we still there?
If it was to "shock and awe" the Iraqis, well, they're over that now, so why are we still there?
Because all along the purpose was to make more money faster off oil. Still is, and will be until there's no oil left anywhere to make money off of.

The bloggers are asking for the same thing workers have always wanted: recognition of the worth of what they do, the product they make, the skill they have, the service they provide.

But in today's "free market" world, there's no such thing as a "common good" and it's "every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost."

Must be nice to be 24, and not need to think about a family. Not need to think about a wife and children.
Not need to think about health care. Nor mortgage, insurance, taxes and the like. Not need to wonder if you'll be able to afford the fuel for your two paid-for cars in another year, or whether your insurance will cover all the costs if you're injured in a wreck, or someone else injured in a wreck decides to sue you. Not need to wonder how you'll keep groceries on the table if the bank decides to cut your wages, or lay you off and outsource your job to India where they can get guys to do it for $2 an hour. Must be nice. Hope you're still as thrilled with it next year.

And since money is all that you love, good luck getting it to love you back, Daniel.

Oh, yeah -- a better system that could be realistically implemented? The early Christians had that 2,000 years ago, living by the Beatitudes in Jerusalem. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Until Saul came along and turned it wrong side out, that day he fell off the beast along the road to Tarsus.

Seems like it worked pretty well for the boys and
girls in the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration, too -- and the things they built are still around, and still strikingly beautiful.
Not modern, of course. No plastic and electronics and shiny loudness involved. Saved the economy and stopped people starving; built infrastructure, added art and craftsmanship and skills, and took care of people on both ends of the exchange. Hard to beat the value of that, or the pride of helping build it, and earning a living the while you're doing it.

So yes, I do know better ways. I've seen 'em all my life. But for the last 27 years, I've watched this country turning its back on everything it ever stood for, in the name of corporate profits and cost reduction and making Wall Street happy, instead of the average citizen.

Except, actually, maybe it was longer than that; maybe it didn't start with Reagan and the colossal disingenuity that was Iran-Contra. Eisenhower warned us against the military-industrial complex. JFK turned our faces from war toward space. LBJ tried to follow that endeavor to spread not just electric lights and free mail to the rural citizenry, but good wages and decent housing and, wonder of wonders, affordable medical care and real serious public schooling to everybody; Ike got laughed at, JFK got shot, and Johnson got vilified.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Reading comprehension isn't the issue.

He's taking what we're saying, twisting it half way, connecting what normally wouldn't be pasted together, and-

Presto! Chango!

A Mobius strip of an argument!

You know, I wondered what happened to Nuddikins. Looks like we have a new one. From what hole in the abyss they crawl from, I do not know.

Nice posts, Sarah.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

That's actually a very, very interesting question.

I think at once of torture implements. Of course, torture tools don't torture, humans do. But suppose we have an innocent, who sees such a tool, and because of the tool's construction, say, intuits what it's for, and is tempted to torture?

Think of the photos of the Abu Ghraib torture rooms. I remember a similar photo of the Navy's torture rooms in Argentina. Could anybody walk into and then out of such a room, and not be changed--quite possibly for the worse?

So then, is the evil in the tool? Or the tool + human...

Or ... human + tool + human ...

Panta rei....

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

"Somehow, being only 22, I have 4 years of college and 2 cars payed off. I am living on my own with a job working tech support at a bank making 12/hr. I also have an 2 IRAs and a 401k."

Everyone has a dark night of the soul, and yours will be particularly ugly. You have all those things, yet still can't figure out why you are dead inside. You have all those things, but still have no idea who you are : (

I'd like to hear your tune once the universe has bitch-slapped you around a bit. I have a feeling you won't be nearly so smug.

compare.

So lets go through this quagmire yet again. Yes, I revel in futility.

But a world where money, and making more money faster, is more important than anything else is a world gone off the rails — and we’re seeing that happen right before our eyes.

Again, it is a choice to have that view. That's a personal stance on how you rationalize society. I don't think money is more important than anything else, despite what apparently me describing my job entails to some...I have people that I love and care about, friends, activities and hobbies. I care about a lot of things more than money and like to think that I help out others when I can. I simply feel no evil in wanting the best I can get for myself and those I care about. Admittedly I put boundaries on how that is attained while some might not. However, you will always have those people no matter what system you implement.

So again, your topic point fails as we have already discussed this. You apparently just want to discuss it more in depth. My reading comprehension is, apparently, still in tact.

The bloggers are asking for the same thing workers have always wanted: recognition of the worth of what they do, the product they make, the skill they have, the service they provide.

That's fine. However, workers have always attained that through the value others outside of themselves place on their work. You are also talking about a particular profession that is difficult to quantify objectively an impact that you have. I'm talking on an individual basis, not all taken together.

But in today’s “free market” world, there’s no such thing as a “common good” and it’s “every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.”

No, there is such thing as a common good it is simply not regulated by the Federal Government. You don't see it because you aren't on the receiving end of it. Look at any of the thousands of not-for-profit institutions out there. Medical research firms, wildlife preserves, environmental action groups. All of these mysteriously acquire funds because people, again outside the organization, place a set value that they donate on the effort and work of these organizations.

What you are proposing is not only extremely vague, but so Marxian as to be ridiculous. You have proposed nothing except some Robin Hood-esque biblical analogy and said "See! It worked!" You'll have to excuse me if I recuse myself from a discussion where the evidence is a 2,000 year old piece of fiction.

Must be nice to be 24, and not need to think about a family. Not need to think about a wife and children.
Not need to think about health care. Nor mortgage, insurance, taxes and the like. Not need to wonder if you’ll be able to afford the fuel for your two paid-for cars in another year, or whether your insurance will cover all the costs if you’re injured in a wreck, or someone else injured in a wreck decides to sue you. Not need to wonder how you’ll keep groceries on the table if the bank decides to cut your wages, or lay you off and outsource your job to India where they can get guys to do it for $2 an hour. Must be nice. Hope you’re still as thrilled with it next year.

I both laugh and cry at this statement. First, I guess you know exactly what my job is, what by benefits are, how they can be taken away, and what kind of driver I am. You are very astute. /end sarcasm. In any case, your preoccupation with pessimism without warrant not only degrades your argument, it also makes you sound like you really hate me which, according to your own argument, I am one of those

"workers have always wanted: recognition of the worth of what they do, the product they make, the skill they have, the service they provide."

However, I apparently am not allowed to have any of this because I disagree with you. Or you are psychic and predicting my future...do you have a 1 800 #?

However, unfortunately, this isn't the only double standard in the paragraph. You also abhor companies for outsourcing when you maintain that the redistribution of wealth is something you desire. Isn't that simply global redistribution of wealth? Or are we limiting this communist takeover to America?

And since money is all that you love, good luck getting it to love you back, Daniel.

Again, apparently because I am successful, I am evil. So wait, all you've done is flipped the value model on it's head. Now, instead of profit being the sole indicator of goodness, it is now the sole indicator of evil? How is that any less morally reprehensible?

Oh, yeah — a better system that could be realistically implemented? The early Christians had that 2,000 years ago, living by the Beatitudes in Jerusalem. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Until Saul came along and turned it wrong side out, that day he fell off the beast along the road to Tarsus.

I was going to make some snide remark referencing other things the bible thinks we should live by, but it's been done. Using a fictional piece of literature in order to prove that something in reality can work seems....ludicrous? Yes, that's the word.

Seems like it worked pretty well for the boys and
girls in the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration, too — and the things they built are still around, and still strikingly beautiful.
Not modern, of course. No plastic and electronics and shiny loudness involved. Saved the economy and stopped people starving; built infrastructure, added art and craftsmanship and skills, and took care of people on both ends of the exchange. Hard to beat the value of that, or the pride of helping build it, and earning a living the while you’re doing it.

Duh? I don't understand where you are going with this. See, they also had an objectively quantifiable system of getting paid. per hour. How do you propose you get paid? By hour? And how much do you feel you are worth? And why are you worth more than anyone else? Why shouldn't we pay everyone? Should I start paying the guy down the street who sits on a box on Sundays and screams in a megaphone how I'm going to hell unless I meet Jesus? He's spreading a message too, and one I don't particularly care for but, according to you, that doesn't matter. The public doesn't have to want to support a cause, all causes need to be supported and have value in and of themselves.

BTW: So you don't try and regale me with more stories of the CCC, I lived in a house built by the CCC for the first 4 years of my life in Goldbeach, Oregon. I know exactly what it is, what they did, and what it wasn't. None of those men would ask for handouts. They were unemployed, they needed money, so they picked up a shovel and did a job.

Except, actually, maybe it was longer than that; maybe it didn’t start with Reagan and the colossal disingenuity that was Iran-Contra. Eisenhower warned us against the military-industrial complex. JFK turned our faces from war toward space. LBJ tried to follow that endeavor to spread not just electric lights and free mail to the rural citizenry, but good wages and decent housing and, wonder of wonders, affordable medical care and real serious public schooling to everybody; Ike got laughed at, JFK got shot, and Johnson got vilified.

I guess I'll run at this one president by president.

JFK: Got us into Vietnam and had weak domestic policy.

LBJ: Quite interesting parallels to GWB actually. Kept us in a war for years with hundreds of soldiers dieing daily. However, had a great domestic policy to increase growth in the private sector.

Ike: How does the military influence your life now? See, the idea of the MIC is quite obsolete. I would say more of a Political-Litigation-Media complex. Politicians, Lawyers, and the Media have more influence over our country and most others than the military or big companies could dream of having.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

If not money than what? People will always find something to claim as an excuse for their actions. So if we got rid of money all evil in the world would stop? That is the assertion. Patently ridiculous in so many ways that I suppose I'll have to write another insert about it later if I have time.

I will note, however, that it is Ironic that you say I have reading comprehension problems when you state I am 24, when I said I was 22. I hear they now have treatments for foot-in-mouth disease. I don't think, however, any insurance covers it.

On to kelley...

He’s taking what we’re saying, twisting it half way, connecting what normally wouldn’t be pasted together, and-

I guess it's good that you cite specific examples instead of making broad, vague, and baseless assertions with no evidence. It's good to see that a PhD means you can at least think critically and rationally while still citing sources or making cases for points.

/end caustic sarcasm.

Lambert:

You bring up an interesting point. I don't know that you could ever test it because to do so you would need a candidate that was completely isolated from society.

Suppose you take a child who has been isolated and show him implements of torture or take him to Auschwitz. Would he innately be frightened? Or would he feel anything? Is there some residual effect that these things have on the entirety of human consciousness. A good question. One that I can't answer but have thought on. I do reject, for the most part, that things used to do evil acts are not evil because, for the most part, they are not specific. They can normally be replaced with more mundane things.

This is a beauty:

Everyone has a dark night of the soul, and yours will be particularly ugly. You have all those things, yet still can’t figure out why you are dead inside. You have all those things, but still have no idea who you are : (

I’d like to hear your tune once the universe has bitch-slapped you around a bit. I have a feeling you won’t be nearly so smug.

I'm still astonished at how many psychics are on this board! Someone call George Norey!

How is it than someone can even claim to measure my satisfaction with myself, my job, and my life through a post on a blog about whether something is Entitlement or not (BTW: I lol'd at the "it's a republican word" comment. Red and Blue pages of the dictionary now?).

I guess you guys just really want me to be miserable so I can agree with you. The fact is happiness is a choice. I choose to be happy with my life, to be positive at work, and to be a positive influence on others. The biggest worry on my mind right now is calling my mother to find out when I need to pick up the dog to babysit.

You all really love being negative. You thrive on it. I, quite honestly, used to be the exact same way. I find myself looking over my old writings and they bear stark similarity to what you all are writing. I was, however, a bit more overtly communist.

And then I woke up. I realized that I was miserable and I enjoyed it. I thrived on it, fed on it, and consumed it. I took as objective a look as I could at my life and found it wanting. So I changed. I am now so much happier, which apparently means I'm also hollow because those are mutually exclusive, and so much more fulfilled. I really do honestly hope that you all can feel that same way. Maybe you do. I'll admit I could be completely wrong, I know it might be shocking that ONE person on this blog can't read thoughts through a DSL connection but I can't. If you all are happy, then more power to you. If you aren't I hope you become more so. Regardless, hating successful people doesn't make you anymore happy. Trust me on that.

I would also point out that this arguement has gone so far off course as to be rediculous and only..2...of my points from my inital post have been answered.

I don't hate you.
I pity you.
You have no idea how anything works, and you don't care.
Good luck.

I'm perplexed how anyone could refer to what Daniel has written as "trolling"? As I've said, that term (especially "concern trolling") is so over used to be meaningless. He's certainly making valid on-topic points. Why the petulant attacks?

Sarah wrote;

The bloggers are asking for the same thing workers have always wanted: recognition of the worth of what they do, the product they make, the skill they have, the service they provide.

If you want to make your analogy accurate, it would be if the workers had volunteered to work for a non-profit and then turned around and asked to be paid. Again, that smacks of a sense of entitlement.

I'm also astounded that after repeated questions of my "job satisfaction" or over all sense of "happiness" the same exact thing is thrown in Daniels direction. What is the deal? Is everyone here so unhappy that you can't bear the thought of politically engaged people doing it without simultaneously grinding at their wrist with a rusty razor blade?