Proud to be non-union!
Published Mon, Aug 6 2007 1:46 PM
Technorati Tags: Blogging, Liberals, Conservatives, Media
"A loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union". Who else but left-leaning people would bother with something like that these days? From Business Week:
Do bloggers need their own Norma Rae?
In a move that might make some people scratch their heads, a loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards.
Collective bargaining for bloggers? Give me a break. Collective bargaining for what? More bandwidth? An increased rate of (non-existent) pay? The right to a 40 hour blogging week? Overtime?
Organizers hope a bloggers' labor group will not only showcase the growing professionalism of the Web-based writers, but also the importance of their roles in candidates' campaigns.
The importance of their roles? It seems to me that some people are taking themselves way too seriously. Most bloggers, myself included don't have near the reach or influence that they'd like to think they do. Very few are pundits worthy of respect, but somehow just because they write a blog they get the impression that they have become important.
Unsurprisingly, there's decidedly less support for a union movement among conservative bloggers.
I just don't understand some people, especially liberals. Well, maybe I do after all
"I think people have just gotten to the point where people outside the blogosphere understand the value of what it is that we do on the progressive side," said Susie Madrak, the author of Suburban Guerilla blog, who is active in the union campaign. "And I think they feel a little more entitled to ask for something now."
There you have it. That's the reason why left-leaning bloggers might be interested in a union, and why right-leaning bloggers wouldn't. "I think they feel a little more entitled". Once again it's the attitude that they're owed something by others.
Ultimately it's this attitude that I think will spell the downfall of liberalism. One day the massive entitlement culture will collapse of its own weight. When everyone is entitled to the fruits of the labor of others then no one will labor.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Committees of Correspondence, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=913
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/8/6/913.aspx
Rosemary's Thoughts trackbacked with "The Iranian Threat"
If Iran is going to keep threatening to confiscate the three islands (which are countries of their own), Bahran and some of the other tiny countries, then who's to say they won't pull another 'Hitler'? Mr. Shaiatmadami is the 'person' who wrote the e...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | *sigh* I believe you're right that the "entitlement" ethos will ultimately be a major component of faux liberalism's doom.
Unfortunately, it'll drag down lotsa other folks as it goes under, after having sucked as much life out of productive folks as possible along the way.
"Entitlement" is, after all, just another way of referring to greedy, grasping thievery. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | I know what you mean about faux liberalism David. Once upon a time the people we now refer to as conservatives were referred to by people that knew as liberals.
It took the left to turn things on their head and to turn the term "liberal" into a pejorative. But then that's a defining characteristic of "modern" day liberals.
They enjoy taking words and twisting their meaning to support their own ideology. Of course now they refer to themselves as "progressives", as though "progress" is always desirable and good, even when it's progress in the wrong direction.
Why is it, I sometimes wonder that people are constantly encouraged to "change the world". Did the people that changed the world in the previous generation change it in the wrong direction? Or just not far enough. |
Comments to this entry are closed.