Patterico's Pontifications

4/12/2011

This Makes Me Want To Blog At HuffPost Again

Filed under: General — Stranahan @ 12:40 pm



[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]

After watching Arianna being attacked by James Rucker from Color of Change for admitting Andrew Breitbart isn’t racist, this new class action lawsuit against Arianna is another clear reason why I suggested Arianna Shrug.

I blogged at HuffPost for years. I stopped blogging there because I wasn’t happy with their treatment of (their personal friend) Andrew Breitbart, who they threw under the bus at the hopes of appeasing the left. My choice not to blog there while that situation continued – and to write about my decision – is plenty. This lawsuit is beyond stupid; it’s evil. I’ll explain that in a minute.

Here’s what Jonathan Tasini – a HuffPost blogger – screeched today…

In my view, the Huffington Post’s bloggers have essentially been turned into modern-day slaves on Arianna Huffington’s plantation,” he said. “She wants to pocket the tens of millions of dollars she reaped from the hard work of those bloggers….This all could have been avoided had Arianna Huffington not acted like the Wal-Marts, the Waltons, Lloyd Blankfein, which is basically to say, ‘Go screw yourselves, this is my money.’”

In other words, it’s personal.

“We are going to make Arianna Huffington a pariah in the progressive community,” Tasini vowed. “No one will blog for her. She’ll never [be invited to] speak. We will picket her home. We’re going to make it clear that, until you do justice here, your life is going to be a living hell.”

This is the face of liberalism in 2011. It’s appalling. Let’s review – money grubbing + vows of activism to destroy people + attacks on success + race-baiting + entitlement + petulant whining + anger over the feeling that somehow, somewhere, somebody is making a profit.

Mr. Tasini – go screw yourself. It’s her money.

– Lee Stranahan

43 Responses to “This Makes Me Want To Blog At HuffPost Again”

  1. I don’t think “slaves” generally volunteer their labor, do they?

    Bigfoot (8096f2)

  2. I’m betting Jonathan Tasini doesn’t have cable.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  3. Jeez, Lee, you’re relentlessly fair. You’re making the rest of us look bad.

    But seriously, yes, you’re right. It’s BS to volunteer and then later sue that you were used. In fact, a whole lot of people boosted their name recognition via Huffpo. They should have seen this as a hobby, and if they wanted payment, contracted ahead of time. Yes, Huffpo capitalized off the desire many have to opine on issues, but so what?

    I’m so sick of people turning around and demanding a different deal. It’s not like they wish Huffpo had been paying writers, because in that case they wouldn’t have been hired, and they never would have gotten exposure.

    They got something valuable that they can’t get from blogger.com.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  4. it’s a lot like college athletics really

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  5. it’s a lot like college athletics really

    Yes, I like this comparison a lot.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  6. I think this may be a teachable moment for Arianna. Finding out that she is being eaten by her own can not be a pleasant realization for her.

    elissa (1a2b2e)

  7. What’s funny is that because it’s a class action, the plaintiffs will probably get a donation to the human fund, made in their name, while their lawyers each get a 458 italia.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  8. Couldn’t agree more, Lee. What a stupid lawsuit.

    You get nothing, by the way!

    Patterico (4cc965)

  9. So, the petty little whiner is going to picket Arianna because she makes money because he wants to make money too? I guess one man’s capitalist is another man’s oppressor.

    Rochf (f3fbb0)

  10. i tried to say this in twitter, but it was not cooperating…

    ask andrew breitbart for help. he could pay for your lawyer. then you use this suit as a chance to get discovery, and dredge around and see what you could learn.

    the problem, however, is that i think this case will be dismissed. it seems frivolous.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. wow, the suit is even dumber than at first i realized.

    basically they deceived them by not telling them things that were obvious. still the beauty part is that brietbart can uniquely claim damage from having been moved off the front page, and thus he himself would be able to get discovery about that decision. honestly, he doesn’t even need you, lee, to be his shell plaintiff (duh on me for not realizing).

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  12. Not all business plans work out in the end. But if Arianna wants to balance out her coverage and widen her readership now that she has the AOL audience, this would be a perfect time for her to kick off the whiny loudmouths and add a few new centrist and right leaning bloggers who would probably welcome the exposure.

    elissa (1a2b2e)

  13. agreed, stupid lawsuit. But why should I care if they rip each other to shreds?

    Chris (eafa5f)

  14. What’s particularly amusing about this is that if the Huffpo ‘class’ had a clue, they would just start their own news service and pay themselves their share.

    But no, better to sue someone else than try to innovate.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  15. About the Huffington Post’s marriage with America Online, I guess that we’ll see how that one works out, too! 🙂 She took my money, and made more money.

    The Michael Huffington who was fantasizing about Andrew Sullivan all along (3e4784)

  16. “slaves” ? They can stop any time.
    Kunta Kinte should have had it so good.

    Barry (03e5c2)

  17. I don’t think you can sue for voluntary suckerism

    Neo (03e5c2)

  18. It’s like watching a 60’s commune breakup because somebody had the gall to get a real job.

    Neo (03e5c2)

  19. Sorry Mr Stranahan but this, to me, is the essence of the progressive left. There are two groups as I see it. There is a huge number of foot soldiers who can be mobilized with class warfare rhetoric, then there are the opportunists, for example Peter Orzag, who populate the revolving door between government and the industries that have an incestuous relation ship with government.

    Arianna is part of the second group. She was a striver when her gay husband ran for Congress with no credentials but money. He served one term, elected by a gold coast district in Santa Barbara. That was long enough for Arianna to establish herself with the DC privileged class. Her shift from right to left came later, but not much later.

    It is a bit like Charlie Brown and the football. Lucy always yanks it away, just as Obama has adopted Bush’s policies, but the left keeps coming back for more. They never suspect there is a reason why they are always disappointed.

    Over at ChicagoBoyz, I explained why I think there is a liberal gene.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  20. It’s not just that it’s her money. It’s her risk as well.

    All they see is the present success. They can’t understand the risk that made it possible. Thus the final result is seen as not equitable. It’s the culture of sour grapes, of depreciating what it took to realize success, and of nothing ventured but everything gained. Basically, of class warfare.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  21. just in case you missed it cause of there’s so much to click every day, here is from last month where they talked about how AOL’s aspiration is to be a grubby low-rent content farm

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  22. Mr. Tasini – go screw yourself. It’s her money.

    I would suggest amending this to, “Go screw yourself, or go start your own damn blog/website/portal/internet sensation that you can sell to someone as stupid as AOL.”

    Beldar (cd529f)

  23. Race-baiting rhetoric and false/offensive slavery comparisons for the loss!

    Demosthenes (ca616f)

  24. Anyway, I bet AOL will turn out to be gay too.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  25. Hahahahahahaha nice to see Arianna Huffingglue being thrown under the bus.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  26. To paraphrase Governor Christie: “No one is making you blog for the HuffPo.” Nobody stopped Lee from leaving.

    My complaint about the left is that they are called progressive, when in fact, they are regressive. They need a new label that reflects their real character.

    Also, some of you seem to be surprised that such a silly lawsuit exists. The unions have been doing this stuff for years. Maybe people are getting a clearer idea of the unions and other coercive methods of ragging on the employers. Its about time.

    Jeff Mitchell (481f2a)

  27. I think the college athletic analogy is perfect. And Jeff, the left is called Progressive, as are the most fatalistic cancers.

    sybilll (a20195)

  28. “This is the face of liberalism in 2011.”

    Same old face.

    Different day.

    Dave Surls (7f8e4e)

  29. Just signed up the other day and thought I would stop and say Hi!

    alexismshaw (d5c230)

  30. This what those drone bloggers get for working for an evil corporation. EXPLOITATION!!!!!!

    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  31. I think the commentator who made the analogy to the 60’s commune got it right. The bloggers at HuffPo thought they were all one, big happy progressive family, united in fighting for the cause. They are shocked to discover that Arianna was really just a businesswoman who was in it form the money.

    Tasini’s shot at Walmart and the Walton family is funny — at least the people who worked for them knew it was a job and their got their paychecks. I would rather be a party to an honest business transaction than get caught up in a progressive cult like HuffPo any day.

    CBDenver (865a4b)

  32. I am a new guy! I like here!

    donaldgodking (2a6da4)

  33. “This is the face of liberalism in 2011.”

    With respect, Sir, I think that if you look back with your new perspective that you will see that this has been what conservatives have been dealing with for some time.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  34. Shades of Michael Moore bloviating about how the money earned and owned by the “rich” is really a NATIONAL resource – it is ALL OF OUR MONEY!!!! and should be confiscated for the masses. Yet, I don’t see him emptying his checking account and selling his assets to redistribute HIS wealth to the masses. Heck, I don’t even see him using union film crews!

    in_awe (44fed5)

  35. On the one hand, Tasini does sincerely believe what he say,s not like Arianna, OTOH, have you seen some
    of the economically illiterate blogging he has put forward,

    narciso (8a8b93)

  36. “…anger over the feeling that somehow, somewhere, somebody is making a profit.”

    This left wing anger at profit is not new, either. They are much more open about it.

    tyree (84087f)

  37. Yikes. That gang of midgets thinks they’re going to take on Arianna Huffington? Looks like they’re just providing another form of free entertainment.

    M. Scott Eiland (27aed4)

  38. ________________________________________________

    This is the face of liberalism in 2011. It’s appalling.

    Actually, it’s not just the face of left-leaning sentiment in 2011. It’s actually something intrinsic to that particular bias or ideology…

    Reason.com, December 19, 2006:

    A 2002 poll found that those who thought government “was spending too much money on welfare” were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.

    [Arthur C] Brooks [Public Policy professor at Syracuse University] finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential — in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.

    The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals — perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today — are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”

    He writes that young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, “a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.”

    Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, December 2008:

    This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    BTW, most ambulance-chasing trial lawyers, or the type of person most shameless about filing a lawsuit against Arianna Huffington (ie, the epitome of a limousine liberal), are of the left.
    ________________________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  39. Just created an account last week and thought I would stop and say Hi!

    alexiscshaw (d5c230)

  40. ZaZa screwed over her gay husband, who was screwing, or attempting to California GOP, she screwed over after his death the GOP, and now socialist workers find out it was all about her, all the time, every time.

    Oh, well.

    Paul (190db0)

  41. The HuffPo’s volunteer contributions don’t have a legal leg to stand on, however I do understand their disappointment and I acknowledge some level of sympathy for their plight. (That’s in spite of their pissy complaints and general inability to state their position without the superfluous drama.)

    They thought they were part of something important, something bigger than themselves. They were partisans in a great struggle, they counted and they belonged. Then, when the lights came on and there was a lot of money on the table, Arianna grabbed it all for herself, with not so much as a token payment to her troops, no mustering out pay, no severance pay, no reward for loyal service. Nothing. They were betrayed.

    That’s not right. It may be legal, but it’s not right.

    ropelight (ee3cd9)

  42. The left insists on the fact that repubs want to lower taxes on the rich at the peril of elderly and the disabled and the middle class so if there are elderly disabled rich people does Maobama not give two flying leaps about them?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  43. Woah! I’m really loving the template/theme of this website. It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s very hard to get that “perfect balance” between user friendliness and visual appeal. I must say you’ve done a excellent job with this. Also, the blog loads super quick for me on Chrome. Excellent Blog!

    Tapety HD (f5d934)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1127 secs.