Yeah, but IIRC last year you promised to a post on the topic of choice for $1000 or more. Still waiting. Or did I miss it? (Hint: Electronic distribution of WM. The whole thing, not just selected articles.)

I have an aversion to dead trees. Maybe a great opportunity to talk about some of what's going on in e-publishing (not just blogging), and how its changing the political landscape?

p.s. OK, I ponied up. The family very much appreciates not having to first wrap it and refrigerate it as we're running low on freezer space.

"..One way that we don't raise money is by taking bribes from shady business folks".
I gladly accept your assurances, but they remind me of the old ditty:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

The Democratic Party should have demanded Jefferson's immediate resignation after the "freezer bucks" incident. He has simply become a built-in rebuttal for our charges of Republican Party corruption - which are massive and true.

The cost of running such publications as yours might have a little to do with the fact that the rich and privileged people who serve as writers or editors above the ranks of "intern" or "entry-level editorial assistant slave" consider salaries of $50,000.00-$75,000.00 a year to be peanuts, insulting even. They may earn such amounts, they may earn more, but they generally do not earn less.

Just because there are zillions of people in the fields of finance, medicine, construction, etc., who earn obscene amounts, $50,000-$75,000 a year is still a very healthy salary by any normal standard.

I could understand or sympathize with writers and editors wanting more, if their desire did not always seem to come burdened with an incredible sense of entitlement and a smug incomprehension at the fact that huge numbers of Americans earn $17,000-$22,000 a year or less.

"Ah, what care we for money? We are but simple people. We like to go to the beach at Malibu because we are nature lovers. A simple stroll along the beach, an evening meal at a simple, unpretentious restaurant, a bottle of inexpensive cabernet that cost us a mere $20.00 and was quite potable. See how little we care for money. We are at one with the universe, simple, simple, unpretentious people."

http://glassbeadcollective.blip.tv/file/784711/

I agree with has407. I've gotten to where I'd rather read online. I subscribe to the WM but read it mostly online. If you put the rest of the magazine online behind a subscription wall, you wouldn't have to send me a paper copy.

Bad timing asking for money a day after your awful "Wright's not doing Obama any favors" post, Kevin. My wallet remains closed.

Ditto what Dan T. wrote.

At least, do an upbeat post involving l'affaire Weiss first ...

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=916

Done. Wish it could've been more.

Seems to me that "Wright's not doing Obama any favors" shouldn't be so controversial. Is it hard to understand where that statement comes from, even if you disagree with it, even if you agree with everything the Reverend says?

Rev. Wright is free to hold wrong opinions.

I am free to reject those.

Can I deny Obama that same freedom?

If so, what's the higher standard that's being applied here? Or is it not simply a double standard?

Reject or embrace Wright - that's not the issue.

The issue is that otherwise intelligent observers of the scene ought to be able to decouple Wright from Obama, or at least discuss Wright and Obama, on the same footing as previous discussions of Romney's religion.

But that is absolutely not what is happening here.

Ah, hell. What Digby said ...

"This is about the media Heathers using their limited view of politics to make sure that Obama is slapped on the wrist every time Jeremiah Wright speaks. The learned response is that any "doctrinaire left-winger" is radioactive. That's certainly the effort being made here."

That's what I meant to write: Don't be such a goddam Heather.

I'm not arguing with your point, Chino. You are absolutely right. The problem, as I see it, is that "intelligent observers of the scene" don't decide elections, and Rev. Wright undoubtedly knows that. I don't see Kevin slapping Obama on the wrist, I see Kevin observing that Obama's going to get slapped on the wrist. And that is undeniable. Limbaugh and Savage haven't been this happy in ages.

I apologize for my comment. I was angry. I've been floored by this whole Obama-as-Joe-DiMaggio "our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you" business ... where is the Democratic Party, where is Clinton, where are we? Don't we know how we feel about this business, or is it all on Obama now?

See, there I go again, ranting. Sorry.

My family crossed the Plains in oxcarts in search of religious freedom in Utah.

Brave folks, but plenty of strange ideas bouncing around in their heads.

Their descendants have assimilated into mainstream America, but certain sympathies remain ... distrust of government, a millenarian view of world events that welcomes turmoil in the Middle East as a harbinger of better days, suspicion that melanin serves as a marker of pre-mortal valiance ...

If religious freedom means anything in this country, it has to mean we extend the right to disagree to everyone, that noone is held accountable for another man's views.

Obama is being held to account in ways that are unAmerican.

It has become about all of us now, and we need to speak up.

My choice to vent on this particular thread is now making me feel I've made an ass of myself.

I've just donated. Keep up the good work.