Sunday, January 23, 2005
Carnival of the Commies #2: The best of the Left in the week just passed
Since it is our highest ambition to respect the Best of the Left, we will refrain from snarkiness except when we can't resist it, but you should feel free to fill that void in the comments section. Nominations for future installments are not only welcome, they're solicited.
Of course, a lot of these posts will make you mad. Fighting mad. And you will have compelling arguments to discredit the arguments made therein. Don't point your rage to TigerHawk if you feel that way -- I can respect the style or even the substance of an argument without agreeing with it. And sometimes a lefty blogger even gets me to change my mind.
A couple of disclaimers are in order. First, we blow off "hat tips" in this series, not because we don't believe in them, but because they are too much work when you're link-dumping like a banshee. Second, I do not claim to an exhaustive search of the left blogosphere. I spend most of my time in the right side because I blog for fun and reading the writing of people you agree with is a lot more fun than wading through scorn heaped on everything that you think is right and dear in the world. So if you think that I missed an important post from the left, send me an email and we'll get it in the next time.
And, no, I don't really think that lefty bloggers are "commies." I chose the name because (a) it is delightfully alliterative, (b) it is juxtaposed to the Carnival of the Capitalists, a well-known "Carnival" brand and (c) it is so dated that it is much more goofy than insulting, and I'm really not interested in offending anybody (in this post, anyway).
So, here are my candidates for the best and most representative work from the left side of the blogosphere in the week just past.
Foreign affairs, including Iraq.
Crooked Timber's Ted Barlow has a must-read post on our strategic options regarding Iran. Here's a bit to get you to read the whole thing:
There are two large schools of thought in Iran regarding the nuclear program, which he referred to as “nuclear breakthrough” and “nuclear hedging.” Advocates of nuclear breakthrough believe that an Islamic republic is under constant threat. Conflict with the US in inevitable, and they need to be militarily self-reliant as soon as possible to face this eventuality. They have no trust in international treaties, pointing out the passivity of the world when Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80s. If this course leads to sanctions, they’re willing to pay that price. They argue that sanctions will fade away, as they did against Pakistan and India, because the world will realize that the genie can’t be put back in the bottle.
Advocates of nuclear hedging place the nuclear issue in the context of all of Iran’s interests. They fear that Iranian nuclear weapons would provoke their neighbors to lean towards the US. The provocation would lead to sanctions, which they’re not willing to shrug off. Iran suffers from terrible unemployment, maybe 19%. Every year, 1,000,000 people enter the job market, and only 400,000 of them get jobs. There’s no way out of this hole without foreign investment and access to capital markets. UN sanctions would be crippling. They wouldn’t give up the nuclear program, but would use it as a chip to get concessions from the rest of the world.
Crooked Timber's John Quiggin doubts Tom Friedman's claim that young Iranians “many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.”
Oddly enough, when I last visited America, I met plenty of people who “love anything their government hates,” and assured me that the kind of thing I saw on Fox was not really the way most Americans felt. They didn’t feel able to confess to me that they were longing for the arrival of a Franco-German liberation army, but no doubt if I’d had the benefit of an Oxford education, I would have been able to detect their eagerness for an invasion, civil war and so on.
You have to admit, Quiggin makes a good point.
Just as the supporters of the American war in Iraq have their favorite local bloggers, the anti-war forces have their own Iraqi "witnesses." For example, Abu Khaleel, the author of the Iraqi Letter to America blog, had this to say about Tony Blair's suggestion that the misconduct of British soldiers was confined to a few bad apples:
No sir! Of course not! We will not allow any of these minor incidents by groups of few bad apples tarnish the good names of the British armed forces, the US armed forces, the British and US intelligence communities, the good offices of army planners or the good offices of US political leadership. No sir!
Nor these acts by other groups of bad apples:
1. Soldiers steeling money from houses they searched.
2. Soldiers, when faced with anything like a threat, firing at random…killing women and children in the process. Hundreds of such incidents!
3. Soldiers forcing open doors of stores and government establishments to looters.
4. Soldiers shooting and killing thousands of innocent civilians in their drive to take over unresisting Baghdad.
5. Soldiers forcing old, retired people and disbanded army officers to stand in line for most part of the day under the Iraqi summer sun and using truncheons to keep them “well-behaved” when receiving their pensions.
6. Soldiers shooting and killing people in a peaceful demonstration protesting against the use of a local school as military barracks… because they claimed they thought someone had fired a shot at them. None of those soldiers was even scratched. They left 13-17 unarmed dead bodies.
7. Scandalous, inhumanely sick behavior by personnel wearing US army uniform, including torture and the rape of women, men and small boys.
Thirty hours after the time stamp of that post, it had not been tracked by a single warblogger. The left, however, was all over it. Indeed, see this post -- the "Carnival Of The Not Feeling So Terribly Liberated" -- for a full dose of the anti-American Iraqi blogs. Anybody want to take a crack at a rebuttal?
Kevin Drum asks, and answers, a question that will really annoy a lot of righty bloggers:
In all the discussion recently about whether the CIA or the Pentagon produces better intelligence, there's one answer that gets continually overlooked: neither. The real intelligence champ is the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which you may recall as the agency that got it right about the aluminum tubes and then went on to write a lengthy (but ignored) dissent to the infamous 2002 NIE claiming that Saddam Hussein was mere years — or maybe months! — away from building a nuclear bomb.
Social Security reform.
Nothing -- nothing -- is driving the lefty bloggers so nuts as Bush's proposal to reform Social Security. They are contesting both the claims made to justify reform and the substance of the proposals. Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo is on point for the lefty 'sphere. In fact, it is virtually the only subject that Marshall has been writing on recently. On Thursday night, while most of official Washington waltzed away, I sat at my kitchen table nursing a Guinness and quickly tallied Marshall's posts since early Sunday morning, when I posted the last edition of C of the Cs. Of 47 posts on TPM in those five days, no less than 29 (62%) were about Social Security in some way shape or form. Most of the rest of the posts were one-off links, and some of them related to issues that touch the Social Security debate, such as the national debt. So if you want to read the most complete and articulate assault on Social Security reform that I have found in the lefty 'sphere, start with Marshall and just start scrolling. If you want me to pick a post for you, read this inside baseball piece about Republican back-pedalling on the "p" (for privatization) word:
I don't want to upset anyone or cause any unnecessary emotional duress. But I think some of our Republican friends on Capitol Hill are trying to trick their constituents about their position on Social Security.
Yes, I know it's something none of us wants to think could happen. But bear with me.
I don't care who you are, that's funny, right there.
Marshall and others are linking to There Is No Crisis, part of BlogPac, which is a project of the flower and chivalry of the lefty 'sphere:
Here's a partial list of the bloggers behind BlogPac, those serving on the advisory board. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, Duncan Black of Atrios, Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, Matt Stoller of BOP News, Anna of Annatopia, Jesse Taylor of Pandagon, Chris Bowers of MyDD, Steve Gilliard's News Blog & others that are aligned with the effort.
Well, if this crowd can't stop privatization, who will?
And, finally, Tom Tomorrow catches the Republicans using the tsunami to advance the cause of Social Security reform. Sort of.
Blogging.
Lefty bloggers, like righty bloggers, are first and foremost self-referential. There is always a lot of interesting stuff about the art and etiquette of blogging. Atrios, for instance, declares that if you link it, you own it, and even allocates the proportions of linker and linkee responsibility:
Since blogger ethics are all the rage, let me clue the conference participants into an unwritten but well-understood blog issue - you link it, you own it. And, more importantly, the less something you link to has the stamp of official authority, the more you've taken responsibility for it. That is, if I link to the paper of record, then I own the responsibility for it 10% and they own it 90%. But, if I link to "some person on the internets somewhere" who has no established institutional credibility (or lack of) then I own it 95%. In other words, the less likely it is that anyone would have heard about something without my bringing it to their attention, the more I've taken the responsibility for verifying the information.
I agree, by the way, up to a point. I might link to lots of things with no "established institutional credibility" (there is much room to argue about what sources meet that standard), but if I declare that I have not verified it or if I am merely heaping scorn on it I see no reason to take responsibility for it. That is, I take responsibility for links that I offer into evidence in support of an argument that I make, but I link to lots of things for their entertainment value. Credibility matters not in the field of entertainment.
A couple of days later, Atrios elaborated:
And, quite importantly, there's an obvious distinction between blogroll-type links and links in posts. Drudge links to about every major media site in the world -- he's obviously not responsible for all of their content. But, a link in a post without a note of skepticism or a word of caution is an implied endorsement. I'm responsible for directing people to good information -- if I send them to nonsense on a regular basis I'll catch shit, unless I'm a conservative blogger in which case I'll win awards. I know that insitutional web sites always worry that they'll be held accountable for every single link on their page, and that's just silly - they shouldn't be. But drawing attention to a media outlet with large amounts of content and drawing attention to a particular story are entirely different things.
James Wolcott denounces the verb "to fisk," apparently because it is insulting to Robert Fisk, whom he lionizes in the same post. He offers a psychological explanation for its emergence on warblogs (and, I might add, TigerHawk):
Slurs on the name of a great and brave reporter, they gained currency among warbloggers not only because they caricaturize an ideological enemy but because "f---ing" sounds so much like "fisting," a sexual practice that excites certain verboten latent tendencies in many of them. It gives them an illicit tingle, f---ing a post. Oh well, everyone to his own hobbies, but not under my roof, mister.
It reads like something Maureen Dowd would write if she weren't working for a family paper.
Ezra Klein of Pandagon thinks that he has figured out a strategy for winning any political fight over the blogosphere, or the airwaves, for that matter:
One of the interesting and valuable aspects of blogging is how it clarifies your own thinking, often accidently pinning down a an elusive thought. Which is what my post on Kos and Jerome did this weekend. The blogosphere's reaction to their smearing was an immediate and obsessive rush to confront lies with facts. Honorable, yes, but I'm convinced that it was completely counterproductive. As soon as we began speaking their accusations aloud, we legitimized the issue. The story exited our lips as often, or even more often, than it escaped theirs. Our focus on Williams dissipated, our attempts to disprove their attack made it seem a bigger, more controversial, deal. We were back on the defensive, desperately trying to block an untrue charge....
Well, what did the right do? The Armstrong Williams story broke and reporters were beginning to search for similar examples of malfeasance. Did the conservative media begin touting Armstrong's defense? Nope, they invented a wholly new and unrelated smear that would lessen media pressure. The point wasn't smearing Kos or Jerome (that was a bonus), the point was filling the airwaves with a story that suggested equivalence in ethical lapses and would leave the public thinking Williams was "politics as usual". And it worked. It always works. Bush collapsed during the debates and, in the last, flat out lied about downplaying Osama's importance. By day's break, the media would be awash in replays of Bush's idiotic and damaging statement. So did the White House respond and clarify his position? Hell no! They went full-throttle at Kerry for mentioning Mary Cheney. And it was Kerry's invented bigotry that dominated the post-debate coverage, not Bush's factual transgression.
Democrats need to learn that this isn't a scored debate, the public isn't an attentive judge marking points and evaluating arguments. This game is about volume, about coverage, and about disruption.
While Klein's observations are clearly true in a sort of cramped sense, they also reveal an arresting cynicism. Very few -- if any -- of the righty bloggers went after Kos and Jerome to protect Armstrong Williams. Indeed, the right side of the blogosphere was filled with denunciations of Williams and his patron for discrediting otherwise creditable arguments. The righty bloggers went after Kos and Jerome because ragging on Kos (particularly) is one of the joys of the right side of the 'sphere. And because the moral equivalence rap is one of the easiest charges to make.
Kos is offering subscriptions to the Daily Kos. Subscribers get to turn off the ads. That's it, because Kos doesn't "want to create two classes of Kossacks -- those with cool features and the riffraff without."
At least he admits that some of his readers are riffraff!
The race for the DNC chair.
The lefty bloggers are writing about the race for the DNC chair as if it matters, for they have convinced themselves that it is for the soul of the party. Virtually all the Commies I surveyed want Dean to win. Screwy Hoolie, one of the Scrutiny Hooligans, is worried that once again, Dean is piling up too many early endorsements. After Dean grabbed the support of the Florida Democrats, Screwy wants to know whether this is "momentum, or albatross?" Good question.
Health care.
Kos thinks that big business will ultimately drive us toward universal healthcare system (which we righties know is a code word for "socialized medicine").
Miscellaneous.
Furrow has a very thoughtful post about the weaknesses in the performance measurement systems embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act, and his disappointment that there is no sign that they will be improved.
Professor Bitch thinks that the president of Harvard University is, er, "a dick."
Kevin Drum stepped gingerly over the Summers kerfuffle to pick on "Denice D. Denton, the chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, [who] questioned Dr. Summers sharply during the conference, saying she needed to 'speak truth to power.'" Drum:
I would like to lead a crusade to forever ban the phrase "speaking truth to power," especially in academic settings. It's always uttered in tones that imply vast moral courage for doing so, and in Stalinist Russia that would have been true. In the 21st century American university system, however, most academics do nothing but speak truth to power, as loudly and as frequently as they can. Their punishment? Tenure, usually.
Tenure! Heh. But Drum doesn't stop there:
Of course, the fact that this was not a junior faculty member questioning Summers, but a fellow university president, makes it all the more ridiculous. Disagree all you want, folks, but let's please not pose as the second coming of Nelson Mandela while doing it.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!
Sean Carroll of Preposterous Universe is pissed at the Bush White House. For killing funds to service the Hubble Telescope. I agree with Sean. We also like Sean, because he wrote such nice things about the first Carnival of the Commies.
More over at Kos on the politics of the Hubble. The irritation on the left seems to stem less from a love of the Hubble (usually the left wants to spend space program money solving problems "at home"), than a desire that the Hubble savings not be diverted to Bush's proposed expedition to Mars. DavidNYC:
Rather, the choice is between $1 bil for Hubble vs. $1 bil for Bushco's insane, cockamamie Martian scheme - a scheme which some commentators believe is just a ruse for the Bushies to proceed apace with their desire to militarize space. I wouldn't be surprised if this view is right - I've yet to lose when betting on the Bush Administration's venality.
Ezra Klein compares political evangelicalism to the union movement:
Do you guys think it would be fair to say that the quickly-growing evangelical movement -- complete with its megachurches and umbrella organizations -- is to the modern Republican party what the powerful labor movement was to the Democratic party of the 1940's? Seems to me that both unite(d) large portions of the majority group (whites), which is a peculiarly important function because huge blocs rarely have common cause issues that lend them electoral coherence.
Klein is on to something.
Kid Oakland's "I voted" sticker stares back at him from his bathroom mirror, a reproachful reminder that majority rules.
August J. Pollak rants about the almost unbelievable inability of our nation's capital city to deal with bad weather:
On the other hand, in Washington, apparently a goddamn flake hits the ground and the entire Metro area goes to Defcon 3. There was an inch and a half of snow today, and as a result, trains were cancelled, the Airport delayed everything, and I had to wait around the bus terminal at the Pentagon for an entire hour for my bus to show up, bravely fighting through the torrent of light dusting that caused it to be stuck behind for sixty minutes. I have been told that at three inches, the city may actually close down the subway system. If this is true, I want another Civil War just so the capitol can be moved back to Manhattan.
Pollak thinks that his native New Jersey was much tougher when it came to bad weather. I'm not so sure he's right about that.
Billmon is a real snark-machine, not far in tone and style from the Allahpundit of old. Billmon's specialty is moral-equivalence-by-implication, a style of argument -- if it is indeed argument -- that is almost both powerful and deceptive. And entertaining. It is almost always entertaining, unless it's infuriating.
For example, Billmon compares the press accounts of George W. Bush's second inauguration with classical descriptions of decadent Rome. That the BBC sounds a lot like Suetonius is supposed to mean something, but Billmon is, shall we say, too subtle to tell us precisely what. Perhaps his readership is smarter than poor ole TigerHawk!
This is the most inflammatory example of Billmon's implicit moral equivalence. In the seven or eight hours I have spent this week surfing the lefty 'sphere, Billmon's implication that the United States today is no different than Imperial Japan was the most offensive post that I saw.
Atrios got a TiVo!
And when Atrios is wrong, he is man enough to admit it. Or maybe he just wanted to be his own Wanker of the Day.
And, finally, Mr. Pollak blamed me, without linking, for an email he got from a grumpy Liverpudlian. Mr. Pollak, if you're gonna dish the least you can do is link.
More next week.
28 Comments:
By 
Sluggo, at
Sun Jan 23, 09:06:00 AM:
Jack, I really do appreciate the chamber of horrors you put togeather. We do need to be keeping an eye on what's going on over there on the other side of the mirror. Do you have someone to help debrief you upon your return? I suggest Mr. J. Daniels.
By Sean Carroll, at
Sun Jan 23, 12:13:00 PM:
Jack, be careful. If you keep reading all of these reasonable lefties, you might just get converted.
By the way -- maybe I move in the wrong circles (being a physicist), but I can't recall the last time I heard a lefty saying that the space program should be cut to fund welfare programs (although I'm sure some people believe that). The annoyance is that this administration, more than any in memory, bases decisions about science on politics rather than on science. It's hard to get more scientific bang for the buck than with Hubble, or less than with manned spaceflight.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jan 23, 12:54:00 PM:
I'm not a scientist, and I certainly do not apply for federal grants, so it is tough for me to compare the Bush administration to other post-war presidents. It seems to me, though, that politics have always driven federal scientific funding. The spiritual father of manned space flight, which professional scientists tend to deride as inefficient, was John F. Kennedy! He taught the world that the human drama of manned exploration was worth the cost. Whoever said that the only purpose of the space program was science? The only people who believe that are scientists, who (obviously) have a political interest in that point of view.
Indeed, I think that purely utilitarian arguments are a poor justification for the space program and other federal funding of the arts and sciences. If the choice is more money for Hubble or more money to send men to Mars, I want us to go to Mars.
Frankly, though, I think it is a false choice. I would vote to do both.
By Unknown, at
Sun Jan 23, 12:55:00 PM:
By 
, at
Sun Jan 23, 01:29:00 PM:
TigerHawk: You missed another reason for the title of this post, which is that it's a good piece of advertising to get your readers to read further and it's meant in a humorous light. After all, you really wouldn't want your writings to appear on a lefty blog under the moniker "Cavalcade of the Nazis" or something like that, would you? This is some of your best work, by the way.
The Centrist
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Jan 23, 08:18:00 PM:
Jack,
I think this is some of your best work, too. Funny how that is, what with you giving a certified organic lefty good reason to come over and spend some time.
I'll probably be mirroring your efforts in the days ahead.
By , at
Mon Jan 24, 06:15:00 AM:
On the whole Kos/Armstrong debacle, it continues to amaze me how the left side of the Blogosphere devolves so quickly to what amounts to tribalism instead of exploring the issue. It doesn't seem to occur to them that it's not always about my side/your side: the world is a bit bigger than that.
I can't remember seeing a Rightie post that didn't denounce Armstrong in the strongest possible terms - so much so that I didn't write about it for a week: there was nothing to say on that score that hadn't been said.
When I did write about it, it wasn't to denounce Kos, but to explore the differences between their situations, ethically. I concluded that Jerome acted completely ethically. I thought Kos's actions left a bit to be desired, but were still far better than what Armstrong did, and said so.
I still don't think saying "I do some technical work for Dean" is adequate disclosure, but it's better than nothing. And after Kos said "I think after this, we can assume all conservative pundits are on the take", honestly, what the heck did he expect? A dozen roses?
Don't dish, if you can't take it in return. But honestly, I wasn't even interested in writing about it even after I heard he'd said that. The interesting aspect, for me, was always comparing a blogger's duty to disclose to a journalist's duty: i.e., do we owe that duty to our readers?
Many of my readers said, "no". I say, "yes".
It's not a formal duty, and perhaps no one can levy it on us externally, but I still believe it exists if we want to stay honest. And that's the only reason I broached the subject - if Kos had been a conservative, I'd still have written about it, because the same ethical issue would have existed. Sometimes people are too quick to see partisanship.
I don't even read Kos. I could not care less what he's doing or saying, except in the larger framework of how it fits into what we all do.
- Cassandra
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Jan 24, 09:08:00 AM:
By , at
Tue Jan 25, 04:49:00 PM:
You know, Jack, despite the fact that I'm a hardcore progressive, I'm really beginning to enjoy your Carnival of the Commies posts. It's genuinely refreshing to see someone from one side talk about the other side in what's basically a pretty reasonable and even-handed fashion. It gives me hope. Thanks.
By , at
Wed Jan 26, 03:36:00 PM:
”You have to admit, Quiggin makes a good point.”
RE Quiggin; no, I don’t have to admit any such thing.
There may well be people in America who would love to see their government violently overthrown, at least when it is run by Republicans.
The thing is, they want to overthrow a democratically elected representative government, which guarantees them extraordinary amounts of freedom to say and do as they wish.
The “similar” people in e.g. Iran would like to be free of an unelected government which does things like executing women for uncovering their hair. To sane people, that is not a trivial difference.
Next thing you’ll be suggesting M Moore makes a good point in comparing Zarqawi to the Minutemen.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 26, 04:09:00 PM:
To the last guy: Relax. Quiggin's basic point holds, I think, even if his analogy is not to your taste or even fatally flawed. That is, people can hate their own government and even think that other governments are "better" in some sense, but that does not mean that they want those other governments to invade. This may sound contradictory, but it is in the nature of nationalism, which is not exactly the most rational force afoot in the world. There may be a lot of discontent within Iran and there may even be a lot of people who profess a desire for the United States to do something about their government, but that doesn't mean that they would react well to an attack. I don't think it is engaging in Moorish moral equivalency to say that.
By , at
Wed Jan 26, 10:28:00 PM:
Jack
Perhaps you need to re-read Quiggins again. He is not saying what you say he is. He explicitly says that there ARE people in Iraq who would welcome an American invasion. He then suggests that there are Americans who would likewise welcome the forcible removal of the current American government, and imples an equivalance between the two cases.
By , at
Tue Oct 04, 10:07:00 PM:
Great Blog, check out this business. This is the Goose that lays you Golden Eggs! based best business home legitimate
Enjoy!
By , at
Sat Feb 24, 12:42:00 PM:
Hello. Enjoyed your blog. I like the design and you have great content. Keep up the good work.
To see reviews of the Online Dating Sites please visit this site.
By Unknown, at
Sun Feb 25, 01:47:00 PM:
Hey nice blog.
For great articles on dating, relationship and romance tips please visit my site at Online Dating Sites blog
By , at
Sun Feb 25, 05:17:00 PM:
Backend Cash Manuscript Revealed Before you buy Backend Cash Manuscript, learn the truth. Everyone else is saying how great the product is, but how many of them actually bought it? Well I have, and I have used it. This E-book is being highly touted by alot of the "Gurus', but does it really deliver? Will it work for the regular little guy? Read my Free report "Backend Cash Manuscript Revealed" befor you buy. Don't be suckered in by all the hype. TheCrazyAffiliate reveals all. Backend Cash Manuscript Revealed
By , at
Mon Feb 26, 06:12:00 PM:
make money off You Tube , thousands a week just by using 5 steps plus get resell rights to the book.
By , at
Mon Feb 26, 08:12:00 PM:
"TOP Rated" Money Making Program Online The source for information on internet classified advertising and the cheapest advertising method to boost "ANY" business online or off! Think targeted classified ads. Make Money Online using the most profitable state-of-the-art business classified advertising strategies. Profitable Home Based Business
By , at
Mon Feb 26, 10:39:00 PM:
Social Bookmarking Tag Your Favorite Websites Now!
By , at
Thu Mar 01, 10:47:00 PM:
"Slaving For Peanuts-vs-Graving For Walnuts"
Let me tell you a story about me..............................Carael Knight
(TRUE STORY........)
When I first started building my company, MajorEnterprise,
I had started at the bottom. For years, I had worked SO hard "busing-my-hump" for a worthless salary. I mean
No Benefits At All........................................What kind of stability is this? And now, that I look back, the only thing
that comes to mind is, "Man, I worked for some complete "Dummy's" (a.k.a "Bosses.").
The majority of "J-O-B-S" that I have ever worked, I been fired from. I have never been really good at
working for somebody else. I guess one of the main reasons would be that they knew I was humble. Or maybe they
feared me being so intelligent that I would possibly take over the company or something.
They would say stuff to me like "your not being productive enough" or "we need
to talk about your work ethics". It had been times where I wanted to literally laugh in there face! Why? Well, one reason
would be...........................................
1. I have been commented on my "work performance" so much that it would feel strange NOT to be questioned about my work ethic.
2. What benefit will it be to me if I worked "twice as hard" and doubling my workload for still the same pay rate???
3. If I was to get a raise on a "J-O-B", it wouldn't be much because most "J-O-B-S" only give a person cents on the dollar.
4. In life, if I work hard at something, I would rather "bust-my-hump" doing something I love to do rather than wasting my time doing something to make another man richer!
A lot of people won't tell you these things because there "scared" that they may get laid off or have someone think
differently about them. But as for me, I'm my own individual. I'm taking the gloves off! I'm taking a stand to let any individual that feels
like there isn't hope, know that if I can be successful, so can you! Hear my clear, "The only way to truly be happy in life and be successful
is to do what interest you"! Find your niche. Get out and explore new things and opportunites. Find something that you love to do and pursue it.
"NEVER, EVER, EVER, GIVE UP". This is one of the formulas of success! I've always looked at things in clear view in terms of business and personal
finance.
MajorEnterprise
The road was never easy for me but if there are people out there that have overcame hardships ten times as worst as mine, then this should be
a piece of cake for me! That's how I've always looked at it. This is the game of life. Just because a person starts ahead in the race doesn't mean that he
will always finish first. Statistics show that just about every person who is "self made" had to start from the "bottom of the barrel" and "work there way up the ladder". You can too. Being successful and become a shining star in life is not going to be easy "BUT" it isn't impossible either......................................
This has been my true story that I felt I should share with the world..........................................................................
"A Person Never Understands The Sun, Until They've Came Through Rain"........................................Carael Knight
For More About Me And My Company, Visit:
MajorEnterprise
By , at
Sat Mar 03, 10:45:00 PM:
The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight
Information powers our world. The more information you have, the more money you make. It used to be you had to go to an expensive business school or spend years becoming a doctor or lawyer to have valuable information people would pay big money for.
Not anymore. Today ANYONE can use FREE classified ads to sell information demanded daily by MILLIONS of people. Think about it. These days when somebody wants to know how to do something, they GO ONLINE and look for INFORMATION to tell them how to do it.
My name is Carael Knight. I started Major Enterprise about seven years ago with a vision and a plan.
The vision was to show people how to start, run, and operate their own profitable online business. Now that led me to create the plan, which was the process of carrying out the vision!
Click Here for more information:
The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 11:38:00 AM:
I'll put it straight forward. Money is free.
This company will pay you $5 for every person who signs up for free being your affiliate. We all like free money as it is available to us, so I thought I'd let you know.
All you need to do is get them to sign up for free, and you make your money.
You could also decide to promote their winning programs and make up to 75% per sale!!
But, the easy part is to get $5 per person for free! They sign up being an affiliate for one of the best performing and converting affiliate programs available today.
The best thing is, that just as you can, they can start making money this way. Imagine you get 500 people to sign up for free monthly.
That is $2500 extra. For free!
You will also start to make commission on any sales the affiliates you have brought in too!
The one who brings in the most new affiliates gets to choose a huge price like a massive flatscreens, laptops and more.
Too good to be true? Check yourself!
To sign up for this amazing offer (for free) you go here:
http://freemoney.moneyisfree.com
Or click Free money
Enjoy!
By , at
Wed Mar 07, 04:21:00 PM:
Data Entry Workers Required Pay is $25 - $50 an Hour.Work from Home at PC. No Experience Req. Apply here
By , at
Thu Mar 15, 04:51:00 PM:
Nice Blog. I will continue reading. Feel free to visit:
The source for information on internet classified advertising and the cheapest advertising method to boost "ANY" business online or off! Think targeted classified ads. Make Money Online using unique state-of-the-art classified advertising strategies.Carael Knight
The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight
By , at
Mon Mar 19, 01:00:00 PM:
There is alot of debate whether you can Make Easy Money Online and with so many scams out there it is bound to be a little bit dishearting!
So are there any legit ways to Make Easy Money Online?
Well, Yes you will be glad to know there are legit ways to Make Easy Money Online the only thing is all of them require hard work!
I know there are websites out there that claim you can become a millionaire overnight but if you think about it this is just not plausible!
That said with a bit of work on your part you will be suprised how easy it is to Make Easy Money Online and you should start off by searchnig for more info on Google and maybe join a few groups with like minded people!
If you really want to know how to Make Easy Money Online I would suggest investing in this manual, but only if you are serious as they will give you the keys to the door but you must open it so to speak!
One guide I would recommend that was created by an internet marketing genius, Carael Knight that made it big is called "How To Get Rich Selling Information Through Classified Ads"!
For more info on MajorEnteprise and how you can start to Make Easy Money Online, click the link below:
Make Easy Money Online
By , at
Sun Apr 01, 02:13:00 AM:
Since I was young I always had an ambition to become wealthy. This was not just for the sake of being wealthy, but because I saw what a struggle money was for so many people around me.
The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight
Not knowing where to start on actually making money, I went to college and got a Business Degree. After graduation, I went straight into working in the financial industry only to find that I did not like putting in long hours even for the substantial starting salary.
Who Wants To Be A Internet Millionaire
I know most people would've been happy with what I was making, but the truth is that I had no free time. To me having my time was more important then having more money. I knew there had to be a way to have both so I started looking for other ventures outside of the traditional workforce.
I tried several different things and ended up making the most on eBay. I juggled my full time job and eBay for nearly a year until I was making enough online to quit my job and pay my bills.
I started to live the life. eBay was growing and actually started to make me more money then what I had been making at my "professional" job.
The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight
Tip:
Most "Real" home based online money making businesses has to have "Proof of Earnings" to back up what they say right? Well...............
See My Earnings Here!
I don't just "talk the talk", I "walk the walk" and can back up everything that I'm telling you. Look at it this way, if you make "ONLY" a measely $274 a day, that about $100,000 a year! Think about it.
The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight
$274 A Day = $100,000 A Year
I don't know about you, but this is amazing to me when you really think about it!
If the truth be told I should be selling this system for hundreds of dollars because of how confident I am with this manual. Initially I offered it for $299 and was able to sell the program very successfully.....................
Who Wants To Be A Internet Millionaire
By , at
Tue Apr 03, 12:37:00 AM:
QLx3 Best Income Program The Most Powerful Business Social Network and Income Program On The Web!
By , at
Fri Apr 06, 12:21:00 AM:
Work at home opportunites For people who are smart enough to go after there own dreams
Work from home opportunites
Women who have children will love it...
